and that, thus privileged, he at one time appears a stick, at another a stone, again a clod of earth, &c; but how any Polypus can be fire and water at one and the same time, or how honourable Men can say yea and nay in a breath, this I do not comprehend. It is a mystery too profound for us mortals to investigate !-Confining ourselves therefore within the limits of common sense, let us inquire which of those self-refuting propositions we are to die for, the yea which thanked, or the nay which condemned!

II. I venture to say that, unless you are much altered by the fatal influence of those local and political distinctions, which unfortunately prevail in our native Country, or unless you are irritated, and provoked to madness by the penal proscriptions of a barbarous Code of Laws, you will candidly confess, that there is much more real danger to be apprehended for the Independence of our Church, from the usurpations of Bishops, who bequeath their Dioceses, and nominate their own Successors, in defiance of the Councils of Nice and of Rome,

than there can possibly be from a Negative on the part of the Civil power. In this latter case, there is real independence of Episcopal Election; whereas, in the bequeathing power, there is no Election at all.

III. You may perhaps imagine, that the fact I have mentioned of the interference of an Arian in the Election of a Pope, is but one solitary instance of Arian Nomination, which ought to be considered rather as an exception to a general rule, than as an example for imitation, in the Discipline of the Irish Church.

Let us for a moment suppose, what is false, that it is a solitary case.-Even so my argu ment is invincible; for if an Arian nomination were inconsistent with, or repugnant to, Revelation, the Church could not in any instance admit of it, more than she could in any instance allow us to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, Real Presence, or Sacraments.

But is it really a solitary instance? Is there but one instance of this Arian interference in the nomination of Popes?-Read, and judge.

Pope Felix IV was not only nominated to

the See of Rome by the same Arian King who nominated Symmachus, but he was nominated previously to any Election of the Clergy.* It is true, that the Roman Clergy remonstrated against previous nomination, requiring that, according to the Canons, Ecclesiastical Election should precede all interference on the part of the Civil power.

Theodoric however persisted, claiming a right even to previous nomination, in virtue of Odoacre's Law that no Pope should be elected without the Royal Consent, and the dispute terminated in a Concordatum, by which the Roman Clergy received the King's previous no

* "Felix IV Castorii filius, Samnis, Pontifex a Theodorico "designatus est anno 526. Quo facto Theodoricus non "solum confirmandi, ut antea Odoacer, sed etiam eligendi "Romani Pontificis jus sibi usurpavit. Restitit acriter "Clerus Senatusque Romanus, non electo, qui erat vir specta"tissimus, sed Electioni. Ea demum lege res composita, ut in "posterum, more pristino, Clerus eligeret Romanum Pontificem, quem Rex confirmaret assensu suo. Hæc eligendi "Pontificis ratio tamdiu obtinuit, quamdiu stetit Regnum "Gothorum in Italia, quo labefactato, eam sibi auctoritatem "vindicaverunt Orientis Imperatores." Sandini ibid. in Vita Felicis IV, pág. 176. Baronii Annal. ad ann. 526, § 24, et Pagi ad eundem annum, § 8.

mination of Felix, pro hac vice, on condition, that the Canonical Discipline should be observed in future; namely, that the election. and presentation of each new Pope should be made by the Clergy, and that Theodoric and his Successors should confirm or negative the Pope elect, as he might deem most expedient for the safety of the State.

These facts are admitted, even by those writers of modern Rome, who endeavour to palliate and gloss over every fact that makes against the Pope's temporal Dominion. They are acknowledged, even by Baronius and Sandini. We are compelled by the whole tide and current of Ecclesiastical History, to confess that the nomination of the Popes was vested in the Gothic Kings of Italy, whether Catholics or Arians, during the whole period of the Gothic Government, from the reign of Odoacre to the reign of Justinian; and that when the Goths were conquered and expelled by Narses, the Greek Emperors claimed the same privilege, and exercised it, with Sovereign sway, down to the Pontificate of Gregory the III.

I now may be allowed to claim attention to the following argument.-That man, who knowingly adds an Iota to Revelation, and excites Men to suffer Martyrdom for his own addition, is as wicked and heretical as he who knowingly takes an Iota from Revelation, and pursues the same course. Now he who excites

Men to Martyrdom, as for an Article of Faith, rather than consent to a Negative in the Election of Bishops on the part of the Civil Power, whether that Power be Arian or Catholic, not only adds to Revelation, but also impeaches the infallibility of the Catholic Church, which granted a Negative to all the Gothic, and to all the Greek Kings of Italy, during a space of three hundred years.

Again, he who would suffer death, rather than consent to a Negative, could not be said to suffer Martyrdom, which can be suffered only for Truth, Righteousness, and Revelation; but he would suffer for a false opinion, which is repugnant to the practice of the Catholic Church, and which is heretical, inasmuch as it impeaches her Infallibility. Therefore,