THE

PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE.

MARCH, 1852.

Miscellaneous Articles.

BELLARMINE'S FIRST MARK OF A CHURCH.

THE Cardinal says that the first mark of the true Church is that it is called Catholic and Christian. This is very strange. How can two names of very different signification constitute one mark? If they at all point out the true Church, they must each do it, and so each of them is a mark, and thus his first mark is converted into two.

But the Church of God was not called by either of these names for more than four thousand years after its organization. The Church of Christ, founded by the apostles at Jerusalem, was not called Christian for at least fourteen years after the day of Pentecost, Acts xi. 26. Yet the Church at Jerusalem was a true Church as Papists admit. Indeed she was the mother of all Christian Churches. mark, the Christian name, does not then essentially belong to a true Church. The first Church planted by the apostles lacked it for a long time, and so it is no mark, for a true mark is inseparable from the thing which it points out.

This

Nor is the name Catholic a mark. For catholic means universal, and no individual church can be universal. It is an absurdity to Universal comprehends all particulars. Roman Catholic is as great a solecism as particular universal. Moreover, Bellarmine professes to draw his marks of a church from the Scriptures. He says: Deducimus notas ecclesiæ ex Scripturis. But the word catholic is not found in the Bible at all. By his own admission, then, this name is no mark of a church. Nor is this all. We have seen that God has nowhere given the name catholic to any church in any age. Where did any one get it? It may not be easy to tell. It is certainly found in several early creeds, but it is always used there VOL. II.-No. 3

13

(97)

not as a distinctive appellation of those who cling to the Bishop of Rome, but as a general characteristic of the Christian Church, distinguishing it from the Jewish Church, which was national.

But how idle it must be to make a name a mark of anything. It is no mark of a horse, or a dog, that they are called by these names. They have their marks, call them by what name you please. Names may be changed at pleasure; attributes and qualities adhere. This is as true of churches as of animals. Besides, innumerable sects of errorists have often set up earnest claims to be counted Catholics. They have called themselves so. And every class of heretics in this country now claim to be Christian, even Unitarians, Universalists, and Swedenborgians. Yea, there is a sect that refuses any other name than that of Christians. But these claims are all idle. Many a base hearted man has borne the name of George Washington, many a coward has been called Andrew Jackson, and many a vile sinner has borne the name of Peter, Paul, John, James, Luther, Calvin, Wesley or Whitefield.

But Bellarmine says, that sects have always borne the names of their founders. In this he speaks unadvisedly. The Gnostics, the Acephali, the Patri-passians, and many others, derived their names not from their founders at all. So true is it that when men take a wrong position, they are forced to make their facts as they go along.

But nothing is easier than for bodies of men to get any name they please to assume. The great body of mankind always seem ready to yield this point. The Arians for a long time secured the name Catholic to themselves. Indeed Augustin says: "All heretics wish themselves to be called Catholics." And it is the custom of polite men always to call bodies of men by the titles they prefer, provided they can do so without conceding any principle.

The Scriptures speak on this subject with great clearness. Thus in Rev. iii. 1, Christ says to the church in Sardis, "Thou hast a name that thou livest, but art dead;" or in the Doway Bible, "Thou hast the name of being alive, and thou art dead.' If a church, fallen into such deadness, could still maintain the repute of being full of life, how easy must it be to retain a mere appellation, the import of which is perhaps not understood by one person in twenty. In the days of Isaiah, the high authorities of the Jewish people made the very largest pretensions to sanctity, and won for themselves the general consent of those around them. But in the 10th verse of the 1st chapter, God addresses them as "the rulers of Sodom," and their blind dupes as the "people of Gomorrah." Paul states the same in Rom. ii. 17, "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law," &c. Yet he says these very people brought great contempt on true religion: "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you," v. 24. It has always been true that all are not Israel who are of Israel. In Christ's day the Jews cried, "We be Abraham's seed." To such he said, "If To such he said, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." John viii. 33,

39. And in Rev. ii. 9, we read of some who "say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

Indeed, is it not notorious that the basest men and things often bear the best names? One of the grand devices of Satan for the destruction of men's souls, is to pass off all wickedness under specious pretences. Supposing a name to be significant, the question still arises, Is it worthily borne and fitly given?

But some one may say that the name Catholic is to be taken, not as a mere word of appellation, but as embracing the thing signified,' and that the Church of Rome is the universal church. This is simply begging the question. Cyril says the church is called catholic because she teaches in a catholic manner and perfectly all the doctrines which men are bound to know. Let the Church of Rome do this, and we will have no more contest with her about her name or anything else. But as long as she teaches for doctrines the commandments of men, subverts the faith once delivered to the saints, makes void the law of God by her traditions, and persecutes the true people of God wherever she has the power, she is not the Catholic Church, and should the term be unwisely conceded, she will still be the harlot, the mother of abominations, the woman drunk with the blood of the Saints. W. S. P.

FOREIGN MISSIONS.

THE cause of foreign missions occupies a prominent place among the objects of Christian benevolence. Some would perhaps say, that it shares too largely in the pecuniary contributions of the churches. It has to contend, however, with no formal opposition; but it has reason, if it be the cause of Christ, to complain of great neglect. Many do nothing for it, and seem to care little about it. Some hundreds of our churches make no contributions for its support. Most of these have ministers who rank deservedly high for piety. In most of the churches, there are members who take but little interest in the subject. Facts of this kind are painful to those who regard the work of foreign missions as the cause of Christ and of his Church. Are they mistaken in their views of this work? Is theirs a zeal without knowledge? If so, the sooner they discover this the better. If on the other hand they are sustained by the word, the providence, and the Spirit of God, they may use the greater confidence in pleading with their Christian brethren for their co-operation, and may themselves go forward with a full persuasion that their labour is not in vain in the Lord.

A statement of the reasons for engaging in the missionary work, however briefly made, should include:

I. The Commandment of our Lord: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."