sense of the father quoted. What are we to think of a writer who has the audacity to cite St. Jerome, himself the Secretary of a Pope, and Cardinal of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, against the Primacy of Peter, which he asserts in the most positive terms? Suppose that St. Jerome did assert that the bishop of Rome had erred, what then? Who claims infallibility for the Pope as a private doctor, or as the bishop of the particular diocese of Rome? What Catholics claim for the Pope is infallibility, by virtue of the supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost, in deciding questions of faith and morals for the whole Church. When you cite a passage from St. Jerome asserting that the Pope has erred in some such question, we will then consider it, and give you an answer.

"Surely then the bishop of Rome had no infinite or universal power." Who ever said he had? Pray, do not call refuting your own ignorance or misrepresentation refuting us. The Pope is not God, and only God has or can have infinite or universal power. We should suppose even Protestants could understand that. If they can, why not we? "The Church was then governed by councils, and heretics were put down by general councils, and heretics were then numerous." Indeed? So they are now, and so they were before, and so, we presume, they will be to the end of the world. What do you conclude from all that? Pray how was the Church governed before the first council, which according to you was that of Nice, and which, if I recollect aright, was not celebrated till the early part of the fourth century.

"The Arians, favored by an emperor, were supposed to be in the ascendant." Were supposed, by whom? Were in the ascendant, in the State or the Church? If in the State, it is nothing to the purpose, for Paganism up to the time of Constantine had been in the ascendency in the State, and was so even after him, and favored, too, by an Emperor, Julian the Apostate; if you mean in the Church, we deny it; for the Arians were condemned as heretics by the Council of Nice, and by their refusal to subscribe the Nicene Creed were excluded from the Church, and therefore could not be in the ascendant in it. It was not the Church, but the empire, that, St. Jerome says, was astonished to find itself Arian.

Liberius did not take part with the Arians, but resisted them, and condemned the bishops who, at Rimini, so far yielded to threats and persecutions as to subscribe a Semiarian formula. He was accused, not in his lifetime, by the Arians, of having also yielded, but his whole conduct after his return from exile, as well as the joy of the Roman people who were devoted to the Nicene Creed, refutes the calumny. He was sent into exile because he would not commune with Arian bishops, and because he firmly and perseveringly refused his assent to the condemnation of St. Athanasius. Both before and after his exile he was firm in his orthodoxy, and most decided against the Arians, proving as clearly and as conclusively as man can prove any thing that he had no Arian tendencies or sympathies. It has been, indeed, thought by some Catholics, like Baronius, Bossuet, Cardinal Cusanus,—not Casanus, as Mr. Derby has it, and others, that worn out by the fatigues of his exile, and overcome by violence, he so far yielded as to subscribe a formula orthodox on its face but susceptible of an Arian interpretation; yet of this there is no evidence but an accusation first made, nobody knows by whom, long after his death. The charge rested on authorities now proved to have been forged, and after a passably thorough investigation of the question, we are satisfied for ourselves that the charge is simply an Arian fabrication.

The Council of Nice did not divide the world into four great Patriarchates, it was so divided before the celebration of that Council. It only regulated and defined the powers of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; "The Patriarchate of Rome was confined to Italy and the West," if you please; but what if it was? The diocese of Rome was confined to the city of Rome. But the question is not of the powers of the bishop of Rome as bishop, or as Patriarch, but as Pope. The Council did not attempt. to take away the Primacy, to give it to another, nor to restrict it, and it could not confer it, for that had already been done by our Lord himself. As Patriarch he was not superior to the Patriarchs of the East, but as Pope, or Primate of the whole Church, he was their superior, and could and did entertain appeals from them, could and did judge them, as we may see in the case of St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, judged, but acquitted by Liberius.

"Neither had power over the other." As Patriarchs— granted; but the Pope had power to judge the Patriarchs of the East, or else the lawyers of those times were far inferior even to ours.

St. Gregory I., as his immediate predecessor, Pelagius II., scouted, if you will, the title of "universal bishop," which the author's friends, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, began to give themselves, and it is certainly true, that no bishop of Rome, down to that time, had ever assumed or borne it; but it is equally true, that no one has ever assumed or borne it since. The Pope is not universal bishop, or bishop of bishops; he is simply bishop of Rome. To call him universal bishop would be to assume that there is only one diocese, and only one bishop in the whole Catholic world, the doctrine Mr. Derby makes St. Cyprian teach in opposition to the Papacy. It would deny the other bishops to be bishops, and make them simply the vicars of the bishop of Rome, which is not and never has been the doctrine of the Catholic Church, or the pretension of the Sovereign Pontiff. "The idea of a universal bishop was scouted by the bishops of Rome, as well as by others." Certainly, and even more so; we have never found an instance in which a Pope has entertained it.

Mr. Derby cites St. John to prove that "the number of the beast is 666," and St. Irenæus to prove that "the name of Antichrist is expressed by a number Дaтeivos, equivalent to Latinus. The Greek letters indicate 666." Well, what then? Is Latinus the name of the Pope? or are we to assume that he is Antichrist, because he speaks or writes Latin ? Pastorini finds the number 666 in Luterus, the Latinized name of Luther, originally Luder, from the same root as our word lewd; shall we therefore conclude that Luther was Antichrist, in propria persona ? It is time to have done with this nonsense.

"Early in the seventh century, John, bishop of Constantinople, claimed from the emperor Maurice, the title of universal bishop,' and Gregory objected. Soon after Maurice, with his family, was murdered by the centurion Phocas, who was raised by the soldiery to the imperial throne. At the instance of Boniface II., bishop of Rome, a successor of Gregory, the usurper Phocas conferred this 'ungodly name,' as it was termed by Gregory, on Boniface. Building on this frail title, derived not from St. Peter, but from the felon

and usurper Phocas, the popes soon enlarged their power, so that in another century pope Boniface VIII. announced, that every creature must submit itself to the bishop of Rome, upon the pain of everlasting damnation.' So much for the origin and foundations of the papal power in the church of Rome. In another letter I shall point out its departure from the teachings of our Saviour."--pp. 19, 20.

We know not on what authority the learned jurist puts forth this precious piece of scandal, but so far as it affects the Popes it is wholly unfounded. Phocas could not have conferred the "ungodly name" at the instance of Boniface II. for that Pope died in 532, and Phocas was not elected emperor till seventy years afterwards. Mr. Derby means Boniface III. It is said that he obtained from Phocas a decree conferring on the bishop of Rome the title in question, but on no adequate authority. Such a title had been offered to Leo Magnus, who rejected it, as St. Gregory relates, and all I can find is that Boniface III. obtained from Phocas a decree recognizing the See of Peter as the head of all the churches. Anastasius, the Librarian, in his Life of Boniface III., says: "Hic obtinuit apud Phocam principem, ut sedes Apostolica beati Petri Apostoli caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum, id est, Ecclesia Romana, quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat." Paulus Diaconus says the same. There was nothing objectionable in this. The patriarchs of Constantinople, John and Cyriacus, arrogated to themselves the title of "Ecumenical Bishop or Patriarch," to the great scandal of the Church, with the sanction or connivance of the Emperor Maurice; and neither Pelagius nor Gregory was able to induce Maurice to recognize its injustice. Boniface, whom Gregory had sent as his nuncio and commended to Phocas, obtained, on becoming Pope, from that Emperor, a decree, not conferring a title which his predecessors had rejected and no Pope assumes or bears, but recognizing, against the pretensions of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, the Roman Church as caput omnium Ecclesiarum, or head of all the Churches, as had been always asserted, and especially by Pelagius II. and St. Gregory I. It was simply a legal recognition of the fact of the supremacy, in ecclesiastical causes, of the See of Peter, not an act conferring that supremacy. Phocas appears to have been a bad man, and a bad em

peror, but he was emperor de facto, and all he did was to confirm a previous edict of Justinian to the same effect, or to confirm what was already the law of the empire, and necessary to enable the Pope to take cognizance of the causes which by the Canons of the Church were reserved to the Papal chair. To pretend that the bishops of Rome built upon that edict of a bad emperor the whole fabric of their power is to betray great want of honesty or of knowledge of history, for the claims of the Popes, whether well or ill founded, had been put forth as distinctly as they are now, and admitted and acted on centuries before Phocas became Emperor.

But it is time to pass to the author's fourth Letter, in which he attempts to set up a theory of his own, safer and solider than that of Rome.

6

"I propose now to consider the means' which Christ provided for the guidance of his church in after ages, which have not fallen short' of the object, or failed, when properly used, to preserve the church from error. Those means were the four Gospels, the authentic record of Christ's mission, faith, and precepts, and the Acts and Epistles of his chosen disciples, confided to the bishops of the apostolic churches. These bishops met in council from time to time, to put down heresy by the authority of Holy Writ, when individuals yielded to error. This was a safe and reliable system, and the same standards, the Gospels, Epistles, and Acts, are transmitted to us."-p. 22.

Here is a new serving up of the old dish of Protestant cant and nonsense, so often brought upon the table, as to be nauseating to the strongest stomachs. "This is a safe and reliable system." Reliable, Mr. Derby, is newspaper, not classical English. But does the author really believe what he says? or does he simply bring it forward, because he must bring forward something, and he knows not what else to bring? "These bishops met in council from time to time and put down heresy by authority of Holy Writ." Who authorized them to do so? who convokes the Council, presides over its deliberations, confirms and promulgates its acts? Is every assembly of bishops a Council? If not, how distinguish the assembly that is a Council from one that is not? Why has one assembly of Bishops at Ephesus been called an Ecumenical Council, and another, a Latro