opinions, separating from Barnabas? Had they lived in those days, when, according to Origen, the Christians were so divided by faction, that, save the name alone, no vestige of Christian unanimity remained: when, as Socrates informs. us, their discussions and divisions were the subject even of theatrical ridicule: when the Emperor Constantine describes the tide of disunion and animosity to have run so high as far to exceed every former calamity: when Theophilus, Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustin, Ruffin, St. Jerome, who were all Christians, all Fathers, all Catholics, were inflamed against each other, by the most bitter and implacable animosity: when, as Nazianzen affirms, "the members of the same body consumed each other; when the East rose in conflict with the West, irritated by the dispute about leavened bread, and the observation of Easter: things of no such mighty importance: and when such was the innovating Spirit of the Councils, that new decrees and new creeds were continually sanctioned :-had they, I repeat it, lived in these days, what then would they have said? Which party would they have espoused? Whom would they have rejected? What Gospel would they have credited? Whom

would they have stigmatized as heretics? Whom. esteemed as Catholics? But now, Luther and, Zuinglius alone descend into the arena; and how tragical the scene!

And, ought we then, because they happen to differ on certain points, to conclude that both are wrong; that neither have received the Gospel; that neither have taught it in the spirit of rectitude and truth?

66

But, good God! who are these who take cognizance of our dissentions? Are they themselves unanimous? Are all of them resolved upon one system of practice? Do no animosities, no dissentions, prevail among them? Why then do the Scotists and Thomists agree no better with each other on the nature of reward, whether it is a matter of strict justice, or an act of pure mercy? Why are they at issue on the nature of Original Sin in the blessed Virgin; on the obligation of a solemn and a single vow? Why do their Canonists affirm that auricular confession is founded on the positive Law of Man; while their Scholars contend for its divine institution? Why does Albertus Pighius differ

from Cajetanus, Thomas from Lombardus, Scotus from Thomas, Ochamus from Scotus, Alliacensis from Ochamus, the Nominalists from the Realists? Not to mention the various orders and disagreements of Monks and Friars, (some of whom consider that Holiness of Life consists in eating Fish, others in living upon Herbs; some in wearing shoes, others, sandals; some prefer linen garments, others woollen: there are moreover, the Black Friars and the White Friars; some shave their heads entirely, others only in front; some wear shoes, others go barefooted; and some wear a girdle, which others decline: †

* Step. Gardiner in Sophistica diaboli. Rich. Faber, Recantatio Berengarii Schola et Glossa. Guimundus de ConDist. ii. Ego Beren.

sec.

+ Bishop Jewell, in his defence, observes, "The Pharisees, it appeared, made no great account of the Holiness of their Garments; yet, notwithstanding, under the colour and shadow thereof, they deceived the people, and therefore Christ saith unto them, Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees; and unto the people he saith, beware of them that love to go in long robes." Defence of the Apologie, p. 344.

To this, the saying of Macrobius may be added, "Dolosi kominis dolosæ vestes." Lactantius, in the same spirit, declares, that "if any man thinks that apparel, precious stones, or the like, which are by us esteemed, are pleasant or agreeable to God, undoubtedly he knoweth not the nature of God." Lib. vi. cap. 25.

F

thus resting all their pretensions to sanctity on a peculiar mode of dress and diet. Besides these, they ought to remember that two opinions are entertained by their divines respecting the natural presence of the Body of Christ at the Lord's Supper: for some of them affirm that at the Holy Communion they literally eat his flesh, others deny it some say that the entire body of Christ is present in the Eucharist, this opinion also finds opponents: some again affirm that Christ consecrated the elements by a certain divine power, others contend it was by the act of blessing: some again by the conception of five* solemn words in his mind, others by uttering the same: some think that by the use of the demonstrative pronoun THIS," being one of the five words Christ pronounced, the natural bread was pointed out, while others prefer construing it into † a vague and general expression without any reference to quantity or kind. They ought to remember that there are some among them who say that dogs and mice may really eat the Body of Christ; ‡ there are others who mani

* Thomas.

66

+ Gardiner.

"It is a moste certaine, and undoubted Article of our Faithe, that no Creature can eate the Body of Christe, but he

festly and resolutely deny it: there are some who say the very * accidents of bread and wine can afford nourishment; there are others who say the substance of the bread returns. Why should I add more? It were prolix and tedious to enumerate every thing. The whole form of this religion and doctrine, even among the founders and supporters of it, is enveloped in the clouds of uncertainty and dispute. They are seldom unanimous, except indeed like the Pharisees and Sadducees of old, or Herod and Pilate, in their opposition to Christ.

Let them therefore depart, and establish a uniform system of Religion among themselves.— Unity and Concord are the leading features of Christianity: by these alone however we cannot distinguish the Church of God. There was

that is a member of Christes body. This," saith St. Augustin, "is the eating of that meat, and the drinking of that drink, for a man to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him." Whosoever therefore will holde, that a dogge, or a mouse maie eate the very Body of Christe, and that really, and in deede, or whoso staggereth, or doubteth, whether it maie be so or no, Accursed be he.

The Defence of the Apologie, p. 349. * De consec. Dist. ii. Species. Glossa.