excommunicate them. For this high-handed stretch of power he was generally censured, and amongst the rest, Irenaeus wrote him a letter of expostulation, of which the following is a part:

"But those elders, who, before Soter, governed the Church over which you now preside, (i. e., the Church of Rome,) namely Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, with Telesphorus and Sixtus, neither observed this custom themselves, nor allowed those who were with them to observe it. Nevertheless, although they did not observe it, yet they preserved peace with those who came to them from these Churches in which it was observed. And when the most blessed Polycarp came to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and there was a little controversy between them about other things, they embraced each other presently with the kiss of peace, not greatly contending about this question. For neither could Anicetus ever persuade Polycarp to cease this thing, because he had lived familiarly with John, the disciple of our Lord, and with the other apostles, and observed their custom continually. Nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, since Anicetus said that he retained the custom of those elders who were before him. When matters were thus situated, they communed together; and Anicetus yielded to Polycarp, as a token of respect, the office of consecrating the offering in the Church; and at length they departed from each other in peace, as well those who observed this custom, as those who observed it not, keeping the peace of the whole Church."

Now I put it to my Roman Catholic hearers whether this letter, or its sentiments rather, is not utterly at variance with the interpretation which their Church seeks to put on the before mentioned passage. If Irenæus had intended to teach that it was necessary for the whole Church to agree with the Church of Rome, how could he justify Polycarp in differing from that church? How could Anicetus be held out as a worthy example for Victor, in giving the kiss of peace to the Bishop of Smyrna, at the very time that he was obstinately refusing to conform to the supremacy of Rome! If, according to your doctrine, Rome was even then the acknowledged mother and mistress of all churches, if the Bishop of Rome, as your canon tells us, held by divine institution the place of God and of Christ upon the earth, tell me, how Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and the companion of the apostles, could be so ignorant of these mighty prerogatives as to hold a controversy with the then Pope? Tell me how it was that Victor, Christ's vicar upon earth, as you call him, gave the kiss of peace to one who resisted his authority! And tell me, lastly, how it was that the Bishop of Smyrna, was permitted to take precedence of the Bishop of Rome in the consecration of the Holy Sacrament.

Having thus produced the testimony of both Scripture and the Fathers against the assumption of the Church of Rome, in applying to herself alone the title of Universal, and in asserting her right to govern, ecclesiastically, entire Christendom,-I produce

THIRDLY,-The testimony of acknowledged history in

support of the Protestant view. Eusebius, in his invaluable history, has preserved several epistles of the Emperor Constantine, through whose zeal and devotion the Church obtained so signal a victory over Heathenism. Two of these epistles throw considerable light on this subject:

66

Copy of the Emperor's epistle, in which he orders a Council of Bishops to be held at Rome, for the unity of the Church.

and peace

"Constantine Augustus, to Miltiades, Bishop of Rome, and to Marcus. As many communications of this kind have been sent to me from Anulinus, the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is contained that Cæcilianus, the bishop of Carthage, is accused, in many respects, by his colleagues in Africa; and as this appears to be grievous, that in those provinces which divine Providence has freely entrusted to my fidelity, and in which there is a vast population, the multitude are found inclining to deteriorate, and in a manner divided into two parties, and among others, that the bishops are at variance; I have resolved that the same Cæcilianus, together with ten bishops, who appear to accuse him, and ten others, whom he himself may consider necessary for his cause, shall sail to Rome; that before you, as also Reticius, Maternus, and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have commanded to hasten to Rome for this purpose, he may be heard, as you may understand most consistent with the most sacred law."

"Copy of the epistle in which he commanded another council to be held, for the purpose of removing all the dissension of the bishops.

"Constantine Augustus, to Chrestus, bishop of Syra

cuse.

As certain persons, some time ago, perversely and wickedly began to dissent from the holy religion of celestial virtue, and to abandon the doctrine of the Catholic Church, desirous, therefore, of preventing such disputes among them, I had given orders, that this subject, which appeared to be agitated among them, should be rectified, by delegating certain bishops from Gaul, and summoning others of the opposite parties from Africa, who are pertinaciously and incessantly contending with one another, the bishop of Rome being also present, that by a careful examination in their presence, that which seems to be in contest might be thus decided. But since, as it happens, some forgetful of their own salvation, and the reverence due to our most holy religion, even now do not cease to protract their own enmity, being unwilling to conform to the decision already promulgated,- -it has appeared

necessary to me to provide that this matter, which ought to have ceased after the decision was issued, by their own voluntary agreement, now at length, should be fully terminated by the intervention of many.

"Since, therefore, we have commanded many bishops to meet together from different and remote places, in the city of Arles, towards the Calends of August, we have also thought proper to write to thee, that taking a public vehicle from the most illustrious Latronianus, corrector of Sicily, and taking with thee two others of the second rank which thou mayest select, also three servants to afford you services on the way, you may meet them within the same day at the aforesaid place:

that by thy firmness and the prudence and unanimity of the rest that assemble, this dispute, which has continued incessantly until the present time, in the midst of most disgraceful contentions, may be discussed, by hearing all that shall be alleged by those who are now at yariance, whom we have also commanded to be present; and thus the controversy be reduced, at length, to that observance of faith and fraternal concord, which ought to prevail.'"

I appeal to you, could these epistles have been consistently written, if the doctrine which is now contended for by the Church of Rome, had been then understood and prevalent? How, if the Church and Bishop of Rome were then pre-eminent, could Constantine have committed the charge of a Council of Bishops, meeting in Italy, to the Bishop of Syracuse? How could Constantine have transferred to this council the decision of a question which another council, at which the Pope was present, failed to settle? Tell me, how it is, if the Roman Catholic doctrine is true, that Constantine writes to the Bishop of Rome conjointly with Marcus, and merely as an equal and a colleague with Reticius, Maternus, and Marinus? Tell me why it was that the Bishop of Rome did not convoke these councils ? for, according to the Roman Catholic doctrine this was his prerogative. And tell me, lastly, if the Roman Church, by the appointment of our Lord, is the mother and mistress of all the faithful, how it is that the celebrated Eusebius, one of the most learned men of his day, from whom we have just quoted, writing a book on the History of the Church for the first three hundred