better disposed,) who received the word, &c."* Their being more noble is not proved, as the English version intimates, by their searching the Scriptures.

2. The Scriptures here alluded to, are, once more, only those of the Old Testament.

3. These Beroans are supposed to be commended for searching in the Scriptures-to verify whose doctrines? Why the very Apostles! the very writers of the New Testament! Will any one push the principle of Bible-investigation to this point-to say that not even the word of an inspired apostle was to be received, but was to be subjected to the private scrutiny of every ordinary christian layman? Surely not, what then are we to understand by this passage? Clearly that persons not yet Christians, like the Jews of Beroa, and not convinced of the divine mission of those who preach to them, have a right, nay a duty of investigating the evidence which they bring. The Apostles, speaking to Jews, naturally appealed to the prophecies of the Old Testament, as the simplest and strongest evidence of the truth which they proclaimed. Their hearers naturally, and most justly verified their quotations, and satisfied themselves of their correct application. But surely when once convinced by these means, that those who addressed them were sent by God, this task was at an end; and nothing more remained, but that they should with docility attend to their teaching.

These are literally the only texts of Scripture brought forward, with any plausibility whatever, in favour of the word of God's being, in the New Covenant, the exclusive ground of faith; and I will put it to any impartial mind, if these texts, after the reflections I have made on them, contrasted with the power given to the Church to teach, and the divine sanction permanently promised to her, are of sufficient strength to overthrow the authority on which the Catholic religion bases its rule of faith, as demonstrated by so *Orvis is the word translated by "in that." In the Vulgate qui," who:" in the venerable Svrian version it is "and they heard the word."

many and such concurrent testimonies? So far, then, we have conducted our inquiry to this point—to the establishment of a system of faith, such as the Catholic Church supposes, and to the exclusion of that which expects from each one the forma tion of a particular code of religion, extracted from the written word of God. We have, in other words, come to the conclusion that Christ appointed a Church, with full authority to teach, and with a full guarantee from himself, that it should not fall into error.

But a question immediately presents itself. Upon what grounds does the Catholic Church arrogate to itself to be this one Church? Why should not these prerogatives reside in the Church of England? Has not it also a claim to this authority? Why not in the Greek Church, or in various other oriental churches? Why not in the collection of all Churches together? This is the subject to which I now proceed, and I must be content to discuss it in a very compendious manner. Last Wednesday I spoke at length on what is considered by us the supreme authority of God's Church, and I necessarily went into some remarks on the constant and uninterrupted succession of pastors in our Church. On a former occasion, I showed you likewise, (and I quoted the authority of a learned divine of the Church of England, to prove it acknowledged) that even up to a late period, the Catholic Church was, as we believe it now, essentially the true Church of Christ,—that it was impossible to fix the period when it lost that title, other than about the time of the reformation—that is, at the celebration of the Council of Trent. Others, however, put the period of its supposed defection much farther back. But at present, this matters not: for both parties concede the important fact, that we have prior existence; for both consider us as essentially connected with the foregoing and well-entitled state of the Church of Christ; and the only question is, when we lost our right to that title. They grant, what nobody can deny, that so far as external connexion goes, the series of bishops is uninterrupted in the Catholic Church. We can name

without a doubt of any moment, the exact order of succession, and the term of reign enjoyed by each Pontiff, in the Roman See. And in many churches of Italy, France, Spain, and Germany, we can show a succession of bishops from him who first held the see, to the present day. Now, therefore, it requires authoritative argument to drive any one from the possession of that which he has preserved by uninterrupted links. It requires very strong proofs on the other side, to show how we have forfeited the title which we had, in the beginning, to be considered the only legitimate and undisputed possessors of these Sees; or, in other words, the representatives of the Church of Christ: for it is admitted, that when these Sees were founded, they formed the Church of Christ. Their bishops have remained in them to this moment, and they must be proved to have fallen away, and to have lost their right as the successors of that Church, which is acknowledged by all to have been originally perfect in its doctrines. If we seek a counterpart in the Greeks and their Church, we find a manifest connexion and communion with us up to a certain time; they then, by a formal act, throw off their allegiance and erect them-• selves into an independent communion; and while all this happens, we move not, we remain in the same position in which we were before they left us. By that act, did they acquire new claims, or did we forfeit those which we had before? Coming down to a later period, it is acknowledged that the Church of England separated from that of Rome; various reasons have been brought to prove that the separation was lawful, and to justify the grounds on which it took place. There is, consequently, an acknowledgment that a change of state occurred in her, while we remain still in possession of whatever rights we previously held; and strong positive arguments must be brought to prove that we are not still what we are previously acknowledged to have been the Church of Christ. We cannot be called upon

to prove that we are to be reckoned still the same. We stand upon our rights; as the successor to a dynasty claims the crown of his ancestors; or as any nobleman in this country holds the

lands legally given to his forefathers, from whom he inherits. Whatever branches of the family may have separated from it, or may have accepted other titles or properties, that cannot affect the right line of succession which he represents.

But, without entering farther into the development of this argument, which would lead us into many secondary considerations, I am content to take the question upon common grounds. We are all agreed,—at least the great majority of Christians in this country,-in the acceptance of a commer symbol of faith or creed; and all profess in it their belief in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.* I willingly stand upon this admitted principle. It would be exceedingly long, and in some respects invidious, to enter into a comparison of the respective claims of the Catholic, and of other Churches, to these qualifications; but there is one simple way of demonstrating which has the right to them; by showing, that is, which alone claims them. For, if we find that all others give up their right and title to these distinctives, it follows that they can have no pretensions to them; and if only one assumes them as its characteristics, assuredly we have enough to prove that it alone possesses them.

1. With regard to unity, all say that they believe in one Church, and profess that the true Church can be only one. But the Catholic Church is the only one that requires absolute unity of faith among all its members; not only so, but as by principles alone I wish to try the questionthe Catholic Church is the only one that holds a principle of faith essentially supposing unity as the most necessary quality of the Church. The Catholic Church lays down, as its principle and ground of faith, that all mankind must believe whatever she decides, and sanctions, with the assistance of the Holy Ghost; and this is a principle necessarily directed to bring all men's minds into oneness of thought. Its essence, therefore, its very soul, that which gives it individuality, is the principle of unity. The principle of the others is, that each

*The Nicene Creed.

individual must judge for himself, and make out his own system of faith; now dispersion, dissension, and variety, are necessarily the very essence of a Church which adopts that principle. And this, in fact, is practically demonstrated. For Leslie acknowledges, that the character, nature, and principle of private judgment is to produce variety, and difference of opinion, and even civil and general war. Thus, clearly, in the Catholic Church alone does the principle of unity exist.

But what shall I say of the character of holiness? Shall I enter into a comparison of the doctrines of the two religions, to show which is the most conducive to that attribute; or shall I compare the lives of most eminent men in our respective Churches? This is a contrast which has been often made, and may be easily repeated; and I have no hesitation. in saying, that, avoiding reference to the present day, and selecting the leading characters, who in former ages have been distinguished as the public representatives of the two systems of belief, it has been made not certainly to our disadvantage, but on the contrary, with a complete triumph in our favour. But I do not wish to enter upon this topic, as it would lead us into great details, and some, perhaps, of an unpleasant nature. Once more, therefore, I stand upon the principle. Our principle is, that the Church, as a Church, can never be immersed in vice, in wickedness, or idolatry, that she never can be but what St Paul describes, when he speaks of her as the spouse of the Lamb, as a chaste virgin, without spot or wrinkle.* The Catholic Church maintains that, by the teaching of Christ, and the promised protection of the Holy Ghost, she is preserved essentially and necessarily from falling into a state of error, corruption, or vice. The principle of Protestantism not only supposes the contrary, but cannot be justified without it. It is only on the ground that the Church has not been always holy, that she has been, and, consequently, can be, plunged into the most disgraceful idolatry and wickedness,—it is only on this ground that Protes* 2 Cor. xi. 2. Ephes. v. 27