far from being warranted by Scripture, is expressly repugnant to the letter of the divine law, which directs the Jewish sabbath, or the Saturday, to be sanctified. By a decree, dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is enjoined to all Christians, to abstain from blood1; and still the catechist and his friends make no difficulty of violating, in their ordinary repasts, a law so solemnly published. There is also a clear distinction made by them, between the dignity of a primate and his suffragans, and between a bishop and a priest; now will this gentle and learned writer, who, in his authorised translation of the Scripture, hears nothing on this matter, but of overseers and elders, have the wonderful condescension to explain the Scriptural grounds, on which he admits a regularly established hierarchy. If he cannot justify his practice by the authority of Scripture, let him cease to arraign the conduct of the Catholic, who, besides Scripture, admits an unwritten rule of faith, as well as a competent tribunal, divinely established, to propound, explain, and enforce this rule. Besides, if the preceding pages be read with attention, it will appear how far the appointment of a head of the church, a supreme pastor, is founded on the sacred text.

II. Then it seems, that this superiority is nothing but usurpation, as has been proved by

Protestant divines. O wonderful discovery! O unparalleled sagacity! Observe the nature and consistency of this singular assertion. The family of his present Majesty has been seated on the British throne, just one hundred and eleven years the title at first was by many deemed questionable, and much blood was shed in supporting the claim. At the present period, however, not a shadow of doubt is entertained on the subject his present Majesty reigns in the hearts of his subjects, and no one, either waking or sleeping, thinks of contesting his title. The present Pontiff and his predecessors have been seated on the pontifical throne for eighteen hundred years, not by a questionable title, but by the full and free consent of the whole Catholic church, and yet this acknowledged superiority is, by the consistent logic of the catechist, termed usurpation !!!

Risum teneatis amici.

Who will not laugh such wretched trash to hear?

Hor.

Again, let me ask the catechist to read with attention the preceding observations, and he will discover, perhaps with pain, that what he has thought proper to term usurpation, proves to be legitimate authority.

III. Then it is said, that the Asiatic and African churches formerly rejected the authority of the Apostolic See, as is evident from history. I

reply, that precisely the contrary is evident from every historical monument now extant. There is no doubt that the catechist alludes to the celebrated discussion about the time of keeping Easter, between some churches in Asia and Pope Victor; as also to the memorable controversy between some African prelates and Pope Stephen, on the subject of re-baptizing heretics. Now both these events, instead of proving a denial of the pontifical authority, clearly evince the contrary to be the fact.

The Asiatic churches had, for a considerable time, kept the feast of Easter, on the fourteenth day of the moon of March, on whatever day of the week it might fall: the Roman Church had invariably kept it on the Sunday following the fourteenth day. The Asiatics were certainly attached to their custom beyond the usual bounds of discretion; and Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, who took a leading part in the discussion, wrote to Pope Victor a strong letter, preserved by Eusebius, which certainly does not, in every part, contain the most measured terms. Pope Victor, finding the parties refractory, employed the sword of excommunication; the sentence, however, was never executed; for by the timely and urgent interposition of St. Irenæus, Bishop of Lyons, the whole affair was compromised, to the satisfaction of the parties. This is the substance of the account given by Eusebius; and

from this it appears that in no part of the dispute was the authority of the pontiff called in question the circumstances, on the contrary, proclaim aloud the acknowledged existence of the pontifical power1.

A similar heat was manifested by certain African bishops, on the subject of re-baptizing heretics, on the ground that the baptism given out of the church was to be deemed invalid. This opinion was maintained with considerable violence by many prelates; among whom St. Cyprian and Firmitian were particularly distinguished. Many angry discussions were held on the subject; but Pope Stephen, though he insisted on a strict adherence to the practice of antiquity, yet, by the advice of St. Dionysius of Alexandria, was restrained from employing severe and decisive measures 2. The affair gradually died away, or in the language of Vincent of Lerins-" retenta est antiquitas; explosa est novitas"-" Antiquity kept its place; novelty was exploded." In the whole progress of this dispute, not a sentence was uttered which amounted to a denial of the pontifical power.

IV. The catechist well knows that the Eastern churches, of which he speaks with applause, were, for the space of nearly nine hundred years, subject to the authority, and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the see of Rome; and that human Eus. Hist. lib. v. c. 23, 24, 25.

2 Ibid. lib. vii. c. 5, 6, 7.

motives, and human passions, occasioned the grand schism. If such motives, in the estimation of the catechist, are sufficient to justify the most important changes in religion, let him, if he pleases, continue to applaud the conduct of the Eastern churches; but if reason and religion both imperatively direct us to respect the authority established by Christ, my opponent will pause, before he draws any argument from the conduct of the Greek church.

V. Equally insignificant and destitute of truth are his observations on the Church of England, when he states that the apostolic see can have no authority over her; that she was a free church from the beginning; and that, notwithstanding the oppressions of the Roman see, she still justly maintains her natural freedom. Is the catechist so unacquainted with the history of religion in his own country, as not to know that England derived all her knowledge of Christianity from the exertions of the see of Rome; that the first well-authenticated conversion of our British ancestors took place during the pontificate of Pope Eleutherius, who sent his zealous and active missionaries to achieve the grand work? If this fact has never been learned by him, he cannot be so great a stranger to historical research as not to know, that the memorable conversion of our Saxon ancestors is to be ascribed to the zeal of Pope Gregory I., known in the church by the distinguished appellation of St. Gregory the Great,