being all fathers-being all catholics-quarrelled one against another with most bitter, and most remediless contentions without end?s When, as saith Nazianzen, "the parts of one body were consumed and wasted one of another?" When the whole East part of the Church was divided from the West, only about leavened bread, and only for the keeping of Easter-day;" which JEROME was induced to declare against the opinions of ORIGEN, the attachment of RUFIN for the writings of that eminent man broke off their friendship; and the publication of a translation of one of the works of ORIGEN by RUFIN, gave occasion to a bitter attack on him from JEROME. To this RUFIN replied, and a warm personal controversy was carried on with no small vehemence, not to say rancour. RUFIN died in Sicily, in 410. His works consist principally of translations, among which are several from ORIGEN-the Ecclesiastical History of EUSEBIUS-and the works of JOSEPHUS.]

8

["THEOPHILUS calleth EPIPHANIUS 'Hæresiarcham,' that is, the grand captain and father of heretics. GENNADIUS, saith St. AUGUSTINE, was not far off from being a heretic. St. JEROME Writing unto St. AUGUSTINE, saith thus: 'I judged that there were certain heretical errors in your epistle. Pope Boniface II. said that AURELIUS the Bishop of Carthage, and St. AUGUSTINE, and other godly and learned fathers in the council of Africa, were 'pricked on and inspired by the devil. St. AUGUSTINE Willeth St. JEROME to acknowledge his error, and to recant.

"Thus much I thought good briefly to touch: not meaning thereby to deface the authority of the ancient fathers; but to show that these and other like bishops and fathers, notwithstanding they were learned and godly, and worthy members of the Church of God, yet were not void of their infirmities.

"ERASMUS, a man of great judgment, saith thus: 'Illis temporibus, ingeniosa res fuit esse Christianum.' In those days it was a great And again:

point of cunning to know how to be a Christian man.' Illa ætate in chartis erat fides potius quam in animo: ac pene tot erant symbola, quot professores.'At that time the faith was in books rather than in the heart: and in a manner there were as many sundry creeds as there were professors of the faith.' (ERASM. in Præf. in Tom. II. Hieronymi.) "-Defenee, p. 319.]

[The controversy between the Greek and Latin Churches respecting the use of unleavened bread in the administration of the Eucharist, was of later origin than the other questions with which it is here connected, having first assumed a decided character in the eleventh century. It has since, as JEWELL states, 'divided the whole East from the West ;' but not singly-being conjoined with many other, and some more important, grounds of difference. The Romish Church uses a wafer, made of leavened dough-the Greek and Eastern Churches use unleavened bread-some in the form of a wafer, but more in that of a cake, or small loaf, broken into morsels.]

u

[The dispute relative to the time of keeping Easter was indeed very early. The Churches of Asia Minor, following the practice of the Apostles John and Philip, celebrated the feast of Easter or Christian

were indeed no great matters to be strived for? And when in all countries new creeds and new decrees continually were devised?

What would these men, trow ye, have said in those days? Which side would they specially then have taken? And which would they then have forsaken? Which gospel would they have believed? Whom would they have accounted for heretics, and whom for catholics? And yet, what a stir and revel keep they this day, only upon the two poor names of LUTHER and ZUINGLIUS! Because these two men are not yet fully resolved upon some one certain point of doctrine, therefore would they needs have us think, that both of them were deceived: that neither of them had the gospel: and that neither of them taught the truth aright.

Sect. 6. But, good GoD! what manner of fellows be these, which blame us for disagreeing? And do all they themselves, ween you, [think you,] agree well together? Is every one of them fully resolved what to follow? Have there been no strifes, no quarrels, no debates amongst themselves at no time? Why then do the Scotists,

passover, on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, on whatever day of the week it might fall. The Church of Rome and other western Churches, pleading the example of the Apostles Paul and Peter, kept it on the Sunday next following that day. In the second century, the venerable POLYCARP travelled to Rome with the view of removing this difference by conference with ANICETUS, then bishop of Rome. The interview was friendly, but unsuccessful. Towards the close of the century, the difference was changed to discord by an attempt of VICTOR, then bishop of Rome, to enjoin the practice of his Church upon those of the East. PoLYCRATES, bishop of Ephesus, strenuously resisted him. VICTOR threatened excommunication. But the threat was an unheard of usurpation of power; and was so effectually opposed by IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, in France, that the whole dispute was for the time hushed up. The discrepance of practice between the East and West continued, however, until the Council of Nice; when it was finally decided by that body (the first claiming to represent the whole Church) that the custom of the Churches of the West should from that time be followed by all. Even then, the diversity did not cease at once : AUGUSTINE of Canterbury found the Asiatic practice in use in Britain, in the year 600.]

[The followers of JOHN DUNS SCOTUS, one of the most eminent among the Schoolmen, as they are termed, of the middle ages. He was a Franciscan friar, native of Britain, but resident in France and Germany, where he died, at Cologne, in 1308.

His followers had many peculiar opinions, not only in theology, but

W

and the Thomists, about that they call meritum congrui [merit of congruity] and meritum condigni [merit of condignity] no better agree together? Why agree they no better among themselves concerning original sin in the blessed Virgin?" concerning a solemn vow, and a single vow? Why say their canonists that auricular confession is appointed by the positive law of man; and their schoolmen contrariwise, that it is appointed by the law of God? Why

in philosophy. OCCAM, the founder of the Nominalists (see Note a) was his friend and disciple, and a leader among the Scotists.]

w [The followers of THOMAS AQUINAS, dignified by the Church of Rome with the title of Saint; who for his eminence in the scholastic divinity and philosophy may be styled the Prince of the Schoolmen, and is currently known among them by the name of the Angelic Doctor. His subtle reasoning, and metaphysicial jargon, did more, perhaps, towards the establishment of the Romish system of doctrine in its full extent of corruption, than the labours of any other man. He was born and educated in Italy; studied in Paris and Cologne; taught at Cologne, Paris, and last at Naples; and died on his way to a council at Lyons, in 1274, aged only 48. He was canonized by Pope JOHN XXII. in 1313, and declared a father of the Church by Pope Pius V in 1567. His works fill eighteen folio volumes. That called the Summa Theologiæ, a system of divinity drawn up in the scholastic method, is best known, and has been frequently republished.

THOMAS AQUINAS belonged to the order of the Dominicans. Hence, his opinions have been espoused by that order; while those of Scotus, his opponent, are adhered to by the Franciscans. "ALPHONSUS DE

CASTRO saith, (Advers. Hæres. Lib. I. cap. 7.) that the Franciscan friars be sworn to DUNS [SCOTUS]; and that he heard a Dominican friar say openly in his sermon, that he was to be suspected, as a heretic, who in any thing dissented from THOMAS OF AQUINE.'"-JEWELL'S Defence, p. 321.]

[The Scotists maintain that it is possible for man in his natural state so to live as to deserve the grace of GoD, by which he may be enabled to obtain salvation: this natural fitness (congruitas) for grace, being such as to oblige the DEITY to grant it. Such is the merit of congruity.

The Thomists, on the other hand, contend that man, by the Divine assistance, is capable of so living as to merit eternal life, to be worthy (condignus) of it in the sight of GOD. In this hypothesis, the question of previous preparation for the grace which enables him to be worthy, is not introduced. This is the merit of condignity.

The X1IIth Article is expressly directed against the Scotist theory.]

[The Scotists maintain that the Virgin Mary was conceived and born without sin; in other words, was by nature free from the corruption inherent in our race since the fall. This doctrine, called the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, is vehemently opposed by the Thomists. The hottest dissensions have been maintained between the two orders of Franciscans and Dominicans on this impor

doth ALBERTUS PIUS dissent from CAJETANUS? Why doth THOMAS dissent from LOMBARDUS, SCOTUS from THOMAS, OCCAMUS from SCOTUS, ALLIACENSIS from OCCAMUS? And why do their Nominals disagree from their Reals? And yet say I nothing of so many diversities of Friars and Monks; how some of them

tant point; which has never been authoritatively decided by the Pope, although repeated attempts have been made by both parties to procure a decision. The establishment of the festival of the Immaculate Conception, in 1476, by Pope SIXTUS IV. is not considered as such; and even after the injunction for its observance, issued by Pope CLEMENT XI. in 1708, the Dominicans still consider themselves uncondemned.

The lengths to which this, and other controversies equally absurd, have been carried in the Romish Church, are hardly conceivable. In the year 1509, four Dominican friars were burned at Bern, in Switzerland, for having contrived and conducted a series of the most abominable impostures, to persuade the people that the Virgin herself had been in habits of familiar intercourse with a member of their monastery, and had declared to him that she was born in original sin. The plot was occasioned by an insult offered to one of their order in the sermon of a Franciscan. A circumstantial account of the whole transaction, which in wickedness almost surpasses belief, was extracted from the official records of the trial by Bishop BURNET, while on his travels in Switzerland. BURNET's Letters. p. 29–40. ed. Roterd. 1687.]

[It would be an endless task to enumerate the minute points of difference between these leaders in the scholastic divinity of the Church of Rome. Almost without exception, they relate to points of no real importance; generally to matters coming under the censure of being "wise above what is written:" yet they were disputed with a fierceness that would have been unbecoming even where all faith and order were at stake.]

а

[These were, in fact, philosophical sects, which arose in the thirteenth century: but the extensive influence which they exerted on the theology of the Church of Rome richly merited for them a place among its differences. This JEWELL shows, Defence, p. 323. s.

The Realists maintained that the genus, or general character belonging to a multitude of individuals, (as that of man, belonging to all human beings,) is a real existence !

The Nominalists asserted the contrary; considering it to be merely a creation of the intellect, formed for the readier acquisition and application of knowledge.

The subtleties of this truly "unprofitable question" were introduced into the reasonings on the corporal presence of CHRIST, and hence derived their importance to the Church of Rome.]

b [In common parlance, these words are used without much distinction. Friars, more properly, are the wandering, mendicant orders, dependent wholly upon charity for subsistence; Monks, the orders which are allowed to possess common property, and consequently have endowed habitations, and stated revenues. Both classes agree in being divided into fraternities, or brotherhoods, each possessing a common habitation; in being bound by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obe

put a great holiness in eating of fish, and some in eating of herbs; some in wearing of shoes, and some in wearing of sandals; some in going in a linen garment, and some in woollen; some of them called white, some black; some being shaven broad, and some narrow; some stalking upon pattens, some going barefooted; some girt, and some ungirt. They onght, I wis [am sure] to remember, that there be some of their own company which say that the body of CHRIST is in his Supper naturally; contrary, other some of the selfsame company deny it utterly." Again, that there be others of them, which say, the body of CHRIST in the Holy Communion is rent and torn with teeth; and some, again, that deny the same. Some also of them there be, that hold that the body of CHRIST in the Sacrament is "quantum ”—that is to say, hath his perfect quantity in the Sacrament; some others again say, Nay. That there be others of them which say, CHRIST did consecrate with a certain divine power; some, that he did the same with his blessing; some again that say, he did it with uttering fine solemn chosen words; and some, with rehearsing the same words after again. Some will have it that when CHRIST did speak those fine words, the material wheaten bread was pointed unto by this demonstrative pronoun "hoc 99 some had rather have that a certain " vagum individuum," as they term it, was meant thereby. Again, others there be that say, dogs and mice may truly and

[this];

dience to the superiors; and in being regulated as to dress, mode of life; devotions, &c. by certain codes of laws. The difference between these codes, constitutes the difference between the several orders, as the Augustins, Benedictins, Carthusians, Dominicans, &c. It is to this difference, particularly, that JEWELL makes allusion.]

C GARDINER in Sophistica Diaboli.

d RICHARD FABER.

• Recantatio Berengarii.-Scholæ, et Glossa.-GUIMUNDUS.-De Consecr. Dist. II. Ego Berengarius.

f [In the words "This is my body;" the fruitful theme of all the disputes between the Romanists and Protestants-the Lutherans and Sacramentarians, relative to the true nature of the consecrated elements in the Eucharist.]

This barbarous term, meaning literally a vague individual,’---in other words, an indefinite individuality-was invented to conceal the absurdity of supposing CHRIST, using the organs of his material body, to assert of something exterior to that body that it was his body.}