even who were the first to make the scriptures the only rule of our faith, have never been able to come to an understanding upon the sense of this same scripture? How comes it that Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, and those sprung from them, could not manage for their lives to agree together? I should not so soon finish, were I to enumerate all their differences. Here is a specimen: "It is clear from "scripture, says Zuinglius, that we receive only "bread and wine in the sacrament. You deceive "yourself, replies Calvin, it is clear from scripture "that the true body and true blood are present; ❝ not in the sacrament, but to him that worthily re❝ceives it. You neither of you understand any "thing about it, exclaims Luther, stepping in be"tween them, you are two asses; you hold this "doctrine from the devil. It is clear from scrip❝ture, adds he in a more subdued tone, that we "must accuse the Holy Spirit of lying, or believe "that the sacred body and blood of Christ are truly " and really present in the sacrament, as well as for "him that receives it." If the scripture is so clear and intelligible, how do you account, I say, for their eternal disputes? and how came the reformation by following one and the same guide, to go astray in so many different directions? Often have they endeavoured to rally, often often have they endeavoured to conciliate all parties by some

"It is of great importance (wrote Calvin to Melancton) that "there should not be transmitted to future ages any suspicion of the "divisions that exist amongst us: for it is beyond imagination "ridiculous, after having quarrelled with all the world that we "should agree so little among ourselves from the very commence

general and well drawn up formulary; but as yet it has been all to no purpose. To facilitate so desired

❝ment of our reform." (a) He was speaking here of the disputes upon the sense of the words, This is my body.

Luther spoke still better, on the same subject: "If the "world is to last much longer, I do declare, considering all these "different interpretations of the scripture, there is no other means "remaining for us to preserve the unity of the faith, than that of "receiving the decrees of the councils and taking refuge under "her authority." (b) He therefore ultimately felt the necessity of unity in faith, and the impossibility of effecting it without the supreme authority of the Church? Is it possible that after two hundred years more of experience, protestants should not be still more struck with and convinced of the justness of this reflection?

66

Melanchton and Chatillon, stupified with the confusion of ideas that prevail among them, declared, the former "that it was well enough known whom to avoid, but not whom to follow;" the "latter, that he doubted very much whether truth was or was "not on their side."

"But in fine, in what a situation are our followers ?" exclaims Duditius: "dispersed, agitated by every wind of doctrine, carried 66 away from one side to another. What is their opinion in religion "to-day, you may, perhaps, ascertain; but what it will be to

morrow, it is impossible to conjecture. In what, I pray, do all "those agree who make war upon the Roman Pontiff? Run over "all their articles from the first to the last, you will see nothing "advanced by one of our teachers, but it is immediately exclaimed against by another as an impiety. ... They make themselves a new creed every month, menstruam fidem habent." (c)

66

66

.....

"The papists object to us our dissensions: I confess we "cannot sufficiently deplore them. I confess, also, that the simple are troubled at them, so far as no longer to know where is "the truth and whether there still remains for God a Church upon earth." (d)

66

"Nothing brings so much discredit on our gospel, as our internal dissensions." (e)

(a)Calv. Epist. ad Melanchton. p. 145.-(b)Luther against Zuinglius and Ecolampadius.—(c)In the Theological Epistles of Beza. p. 43, (d)Georg. Major on the confusion of dogmas.--(e)Melanch. Cons. Theolog. p. 249.

a reconciliation, some have since conceited that they found superfluities in the gospel, and reduced it to what is simply necessary, to fundamental points: as if Jesus Christ had taught useless dogmas or precepts; as if he had not ordered his apostles to teach all nations, to observe all things whatever he had commanded them," and had not told them that the Holy Ghost should teach them all things; as if St. Paul had not protested to the Christians of Miletus and Ephesus, that he had declared to them all the counsel of God and had not spared to do so; and as if St. James had not written, "Whoever shall keep the "whole law, but offend in one point, is become "guilty of all!" And still, even after all their arbitrary restrictions, or rather, sacrilegious reductions, they are no better agreed upon this small number of fundamental points. Surely, were it only from shame of their disputes and intestine divisions,

66

St. Matth. ch. XXVIII. v. 18.-2St. John, ch. XIV. v. 26. "A ets, ch. XX. v. 26.—1Ch. 11. v. 10.—5 Where is the man, said a Calvinist, (a) who can decide to the satisfaction of all, what are the dogmas necessary for salvation and what precisely are sufficient? "I would take such a one to be a great prophet." (b)

66

Another Calvinistic author, in his book on the re-union of Christianity, had written, "that others who seemed to have had in "view this general reconciliation, had not sufficiently distinguished "what is fundamental from what is not so." The equally Calvinistie author of the Remarks upon this work, makes an observation upon this passage, which also is worthy of notice; "What (says he) is "this man thinking of? Does he imagine that it is so easy a thing "to agree upon what is fundamental and what is not so? Has it not "hitherto been an insurmountable difficulty?" (c)

(a)Arnald. Polenburg. in præst viror. ep.—(b)See Préjugés légitimes de M. Nicole, p. 358. (c)Nicole, Prégugés légitimes contre les Calvinistes, P. 358.

their eyes should at last be opened, and so long an experience should have convinced them that the principle from which they started, is only calculated to swell the learned with pride, and to bring into action and opposition the passions of men. It is not the spur but the rein that is wanted for the learned and the proud; they stand no less in need of a guide than the illiterate; and the wisdom of our legislator appears splendidly in this, that both were equally subjected to the yoke of the same authority, that both may be held in the unity of the same doctrine.

Let us therefore conclude, Sir, that scripture alone, far from being a rule of faith common to all mankind, cannot even be so for any particular class of men: not for that of the learned, who have hitherto made no other use of it than to lose themselves in interminable disputes upon many important matters; not for the greater number of persons, who, although able to read, are unable to understand; not for the class of ignorant and simple men and women so general in the world, to whom letters are totally unknown. Let this be the only rule under heaven, and all the doctors of the world shall consume their, days in learned dissertations, in obstinate and fruitless, quarrels about the sense of the scripture; and men of ordinary education shall go out of life without ever knowing what to hold of all they have read; and the multitude of the ignorant and simple, because they cannot read, shall be condemned never to know Jesus Christ! But it is not so: and this misfortune is much more to be feared for the learned than for those little ones, whom the world despises, and whom Jesus Christ has preferred for the uprightness and simplicity of their soul: he loved them too much not to put himself within their reach and be known

by them. "I confess to thee, O Father," did he exclaim in an effusion of tenderness for them, "because thou hast hid these things from the wise "and the prudent, and hast revealed them to "little ones."

Suppose a legislator, a founder of an empire or republic, without troubling himself about creating magistrates and tribunals, were to deliver a code of his laws into the hands of his people and say to them "Take, read and interpret my laws yourselves: they are clear and intelligible. Above all, let there "be no more law suits, but let fraternal love, concord, " and unity dwell among you all;" would not this be an admirably contrived republic? And what would follow from this admirable and novel regulation? In the first place, three parts out of four, not knowing how to read and having no time to lose, if they are to get a living, would throw the code aside, and care nothing about its contents. The others would read in it whatever their interest might make them desirous of finding. And then commenting upon the text at pleasure, no one would be wrong; each one without contradiction would have the law on his side. Thus, cavils and disputes without end or measure, implacable hatreds, irritated hearts, would prevail through the four quarters of the empire. The making such an hypothesis, is a folly that stares us in the face. Away with it to some other world if you like; it certainly belongs not to ours. Accordingly never was there a legislator who did not institute magistrates with supreme authority; never a founder of an

St. Matth. c. XI. v. 25. Luke, c. X. v. 21.