many factions, that they had no name common to them but that of Christian, and they agreed in nothing else but that name, and, as Socrates informs us, they were derided publicly in the theatres by the people for their dissensions and sects; and when, as Constantine the Great said, 'There were so many contentions and controversies in the church, that this very single calamity seemed to exceed the miseries of the former times' of persecution. When Theophilus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ruffinus, and Jerome, all of them Christians, all fathers, and all Catholics, contested with each other with most bitter and implacable animosity; when, as Nazianzen saith, The members of the same body consumed one another.' When the eastern and western churches were divided from each other about leavened bread, and the time of keeping Easter-things of no mighty consequence. When in every council, which were then numerous, there was a new creed, and new and contrary decrees invented. What would these men have then said? to whom would they have applied themselves? from whom would they have fled? in what gospel would they have believed? whom would they have esteemed catholics, and whom heretics? Now there are only two names, Luther and Zuinglius; and what a noise is made about them! But because these two men could not agree about a certain point, shall we therefore think they are both in the wrong, that neither of them has the gospel, and that neither has preached well and truly?

'But who are they that so bitterly reflect on us for our dissensions? Do they, in the mean time, all agree among themselves? Have there never been any dissensions and controversies among them. Why

then do the Scotists and Thomists agree no better concerning the merit of congruity and that of condignity; concerning original sin in the Virgin Mary; and about a solemn and simple vow? Why do the canonists affirm that auricular confession is founded on human and positive laws; and the schoolmen, on the contrary, on divine institution? Why does Albertus Pighius differ from Cajetan; Thomas from Lombard; Scotus from Thomas; Occham from Scotus; Aliacensis from Occham; and the Nominals from the Realists? And that I may not mention the disagreements of the small brotherhoods and monks, some of which place their admired sanctity in eating of fish, others in living upon herbs; some in wearing of shoes, others in sandals; some in linen garments, and others in woollen; some in black, and some in white clothes; some shave their heads broad, and others narrow; some wear shoes, and others go barefoot; some are girded, and some go loose; besides these, they should remember that some of their divines say, that the body of Christ is naturally present in the sacrament, which is again denied by others. There also are some who say, that the body of Christ in the sacrament is torn and ground with our teeth, and again there are others who deny this; there are some who say, that the body in the sacrament hath quantity, others deny it; some say, Christ did consecrate by a certain divine power, others that he did it by his blessing; some, that he did it by conceiving the five words in his mind, others that it was by uttering them. There are some that say, that of these five words the demonstrative pronoun this" shewed the wheaten bread, others say no; but it relates to a certain "vagum individuum" (a no

"Dogs

man knows what). There are some who say, and mice may truly and really eat the body of Christ;" but then there are others who stoutly deny this. There are some who say the accidents of the bread and wine can nourish, and others say the substance returns again. But why should I add any more? it is a long and troublesome business to count up all their divisions: the whole form of their religion and doctrine is to this day controverted and uncertain, among those who first gave being and entertainment to it for they scarcely ever agree, except it be as the pharisees and sadducees, or as Herod and Pilate did of old, against Christ.'1

Unity, then, in the church of Rome, exists in only one shape;-that of 'absolute, unconditional submission to the teaching of the church.' Multitudes, doubt

less, there are, who say with Dr. Milner, 'I believe whatever the Holy Catholic church believes and teaches.' But this is not unity of doctrine; it is merely uniformity of mental slavery! The man who adopts this system does, in effect, say to his priest, 'I put myself into your hands; do you believe for me whatever you think best, and I will subscribe it, profess it, swear to it, or anything else you please.'

An unity of this kind does indeed exist among the adherents of the Romish priesthood; but it is neither more respectable or more safe than the same kind of mental slavery as it exists in Ceylon, in Hindostan, or in Madagascar. It is merely the old device of Satan, by which men's consciences may be quieted, on the one hand, and religion turned into a gainful trade, on the other: the multitude giving their souls

1 Apologia, cap. v. sec. 1.

2 Wiseman, lect. 1, p. 17.

blindfold into the hands of the priests of Buddhu, of Brahma, or of Antichrist; and receiving back, from the sellers of pardons, sundry soul-deceiving delusions. Such an unity exists in the Romish church; but it is not an unity of doctrine, in any correct sense of the word.

For doctrine' is that which addresses itself to the understanding and to the heart, and to be really embraced, it must first be understood. And we have already shewn that it is impossible for Rome to offer to her adherents anything resembling unity of doctrine, in this sense; simply because she does not herself possess it.

There is, there can be, only one source of unity in doctrine; simply because there is but one source of truth. In the divine word that source is opened to us. In it there is no discrepancy, no inconsistency, no need of disunion. The nearer, therefore, men keep to it, just so much the nearer will they draw to each other. It is a common centre, where all who will may unite, and it is the only centre where such a genuine and real union can take place.

But as truth is one, and the only source of real union, so error is multifarious, and in itself essentially destructive of unity. Just in proportion as men recede from the only centre of union, do they also recede from each other, but in an endless variety of directions.

Rome refuses, without hesitation and without reserve, to abide by this centre of unity. It is a principle of action with her, to fly from the unerring word of God, to the erring and jarring decisions, interpretations, and opinions of men. And thus it is that by an inevitable consequence she banishes unity