bring himself to fancy at once serviceable and "safe."-At such language I feel no surprize: it is familiar to the rector of Stanhope: seventeen years ago he displayed his proficiency in the art of abusing his adversary. To it therefore I shall return no other answer now, than what I returned then. I shall only say with the poet, that

A moral, sensible, and well-bred man

Will not offend me, and no other can.

But I owe it to myself, and to the reader, to disprove the charge, and to show that it is entirely founded on the mistakes of the man who made it.

The passage from Anastatius stands thus in the original: "Sane notandum est quædam in hac synodo ex apostolorum et sextæ universalis synodi canonibus inveniri, quæ penes nos interpretata nec habentur, nec admittuntur." Perhaps I need say no more. The meaning of these words is so very obvious, that the reader, if he recollect that they were written eighty years after the Council, must, I think, pronounce in my favour.

But to preclude the very possibility of cavil, I will observe, that in the ancient church there were two collections of Canons, called Apostolic Canons, one of which contained fifty, the other eighty-five articles. In 691, a synod of bishops, assembled by the emperor Justinian II. in Constantinople, and since called the council Quini-sext or in Trullo, decreed one hundred and two Canons of discipline, by the second of which the observance of the eighty-five Apostolic Canons was strongly

enforced. But the following year Pope Sergius rejected the Council and its Canons, and in 769 Stephen IV. decreed that the fifty Apostolic Canons and no more, should be observed.

Thus the matter rested till the second Council of Nice, in 787. By this both the larger collection of Apostolic Canons, and that of the Council in Trullo, were not only quoted with applause, but approved and confirmed in the strongest terms. But the Roman Church did not bend to the authority of the Council: it still adhered to its former decisions; and the two codes of Canons remained without force, and almost unknown, till the pontificate of John VIII. That Pope, about the year 872, probably as a measure of conciliation, made a general order, that all Canons of the Apostles and Councils should be admitted under certain limitations, by which were excluded such Canons among them, as might be contrary to faith, or morals, or the previous constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs. Perhaps Dr. Phillpotts may think this order an admission of the Canons approved by the second Nicene Council. But it was far otherwise. The Council commanded all the Canons of both collections to be observed: the Pope excepted several. We are assured of it by Anastatius himself. Ergo regulas quas Græci a sexta synodo perhibent editas, ita in hac (Nicæna) synodo principalis sedes admittit, ut nullatenus ex his illæ recipiantur, quæ prioribus canonibus vel decretis sanctorum hujus sedis pontificum, aut certe bonis moribus inveni

untur adversæ. Let the reader, with this information before him, peruse once more the passage, which has brought so much abuse upon my head, and say, whether it be possible for any dispassionate man to doubt, that I was justified in the use which I made of it.

But what is the meaning attributed to it by Dr. Phillpotts? That is a mystery which he has prudently locked up within his own breast. He appears only to insinuate, that according to Anastatius, the Canons were not admitted, because they had not been translated, and were therefore unknown. But to whom were they unknown? To the generality of the Latins! That is undoubtedly true, for they had not been translated into the book of Canons for the use of the Latin church. But were they unknown to the Popes? to Hadrian, whose legates presided in the Nicene Council? or to his successors, who wrote so many letters respecting the proceedings of the Council? Now, if they were not, what reason can be given, why these Pontiffs did not notify them to the Latin Church, but that they did not admit them?

In support, as it would seem, of his hypothesis, Dr. Phillpotts has favoured us with an English version of the passage from Anastatius, beginning with Sane notandum, &c. But there is some-: thing portentous in its length; the four lines of the original are multiplied into eight; and the words, quæ penes nos interpretata non habentur, are rendered, "which are not contained in the

"documents of that Council, which we have in our "possession, translated into Latin." It will suffice to observe, that this version says much more than Anastatius said: it even says, that which in all probability he could not have said without giving the lie to himself. For he has told us, that the Romans had a translation of the Council, the author of which had rendered the original text word for word. Verbum e verbo secutus. It was in the book of Canons for the government of the Latin church, that they were not translated.

He has also favoured us with a translation of the other passage which I have quoted, beginning with Ergo regulas, &c. "Therefore the rules, "which the Greeks say were set forth by the sixth "Council, the See of Rome" (who could have expected this rendering of principalis sedes from the orthodoxy of Dr. Phillpotts?) "admits in "such manner in this seventh Council, that still "those of them which contradict former canons

or decrees of Popes, are in no measure admitted." But does not this very passage speak of some Canons that are not admitted? Not in the opinion of Dr. Phillpotts, who argues thus: "the second "Nicene Council adopted some of these Canons, " and gave to them the sanction of the Church:❞— "it is therefore manifest that such canons are not "in the rejected class; nor, indeed, till this bold

attempt of Dr. Lingard were they ever pretended "to be." Seldom have so many mistakes been crowded within so few lines. 1°. "The Council

"adopted some of these (Quinisextian) Canons." It did not adopt some only; it adopted and confirmed all without exception. 2°. "It is manifest "that such Canons are not in the rejected class." Yet, if all were adopted by the Council, and some were rejected by the Popes, some of those adopted must have been in the rejected class. 3°. "Nor, till this bold attempt of Dr. Lingard's, were they ever pretended to be." Yet every writer on these subjects, as far as I have been able to learn, has carefully pointed out to his readers, the very Canons which were rejected by the Pontiffs. Indeed, the Greeks have always made that rejection one of the chief grounds on which they attempt to justify their separation from the Roman Church.

I am aware, that I have already trespassed too far on the patience of your readers, and shall dismiss the remaining charges of Dr. Phillpotts with this general answer:-that Catholics admit the second Nicene Council and subscribe to its decree respecting the faith of the Church; that they refer to the Acts as an historical document, but not as doctrinal authority binding their belief, and that they censure or approve the opinions of the individual speakers recorded in the Acts, according to their respective judgments. But as it is evident, that on the subject of general councils he has to learn the very rudiments of Catholic theology, I recommend the following passage to his notice :"Illud solum et totum est de fide, quod definitur.