by the Jesuits, by the Ultramontanes as by their opponents. You cease to be a Roman Catholic the moment you cease to believe in this infallibility. But there is another species of infallibility with which, it is alleged, the Pope is endowed, and which has occasioned much controversy among the members of that persuasion. Some are of opinion that the Pope is infallible as a private teacher or expounder of the Christian doctrine; others, that his infallibility attaches only to such teachings as are delivered, so to speak, ex cathedra; and others, again, that he is not infallible, in any character or capacity whatsoever. The whole question, as regards the Pope, is matter of opinion. This opinion was rejected by the Church of France, under the guidance of the illustrious Bossuet, in 1688, and by the clergy of Ireland in 1825. It is an opinion which you may adopt or reject, without ceasing to be a Roman Catholic; and few, indeed, in these latter ages, are disposed to place much trust in the infallibility of any mere mortal man. With these facts and opinions D'Israeli was intimately acquainted. His frequent mention of the scholastic divines and their disputations, his allusions to the quarrels of the Ultramontanes, and his extensive researches among the dusty tomes of ecclesiastical history, are sufficient evidence of this circumstance. What, then, are we to think of a writer who could misrepresent

these matters, and, by confounding two distinct things, make it appear that the infallibility of the Pope is an established point of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church? The passage in which this is done is as follows:

"Concerning the acknowledged infallibility of the Popes, it appears that Gregory VII., in council, decreed that the Church of Rome never had erred, and never should err. It was thus this prerogative of his Holiness became received till 1313, when John XXII. abrogated decrees made by three Popes, his predecessors, and declared that what had been done amiss by one Pope or Council might be corrected by another; and Gregory XI., 1370, in his will, deprecates Si quid in Catholicâ fide errasset.' The University of Vienna protested against it, calling it a contempt of God and an idolatry, if any one in matters of faith appealed from a Council to the Pope,—that is, from God, who presides in Councils, to man. But the infallibility was at length established by Leo X., especially after Luther's opposition, because they despaired of defending their indulgences, bulls, &c., by any other method."-Curiosities of Literature.

"

I have given the passage with D'Israeli's italics. In the first sentence he puts forth two gross misstatements. He pretends that the infallibility of the Popes is acknowledged," which it is not, and never was; and he then erroneously asserts that a decree which establishes the infallibility of the Church establishes that of the Popes. He repeats this error in the third sentence, when he says that this prerogative of his Holiness became received in virtue of a certain decree; whereas that decree speaks only of the infallibility of the Church. The Church, therefore, and not any

individual Pope, being held infallible, there is no inconsistency in Pope Gregory XI. deprecating "Si quid in Catholicâ fide errasset," nor in the protest of the University of Vienna. Both, on the contrary, go to establish a distinction between the Popes-who, as men, are liable to error-and the Church of God, against which its Divine Founder promised that the gates of Hell should not prevail. "But," says D'Israeli, "the infallibility was at length established by Leo X." This is the crowning error of this most inaccurate paragraph. Leo X., whatever may have been his private opinion, established no such infallibility. He, or rather the Council of Trent, re-asserted the infallibility of the Church; and as to that of the Pope, every enlightened Roman Catholic is perfectly aware that it remains an open question to this day.

Although these notices relate chiefly to literary blunders, I cannot help citing an instance, that occurs to me, of a practical kind, especially as it has reference to two of the most remarkable literary characters of the last and present centuries. The reader will remember Dr. Johnson's definition of the word "pension."" Pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country;" and how cleverly he was entrapped by George III. into accepting a pension for himself. For this inconsistency Johnson has been sneered at by different writers, and among others by Cobbett,

who, in his English Grammar, has this example in speaking of Johnson :

"Myself, than whom few men have been found more base, having in my dictionary described a pensioner as a slave of state, and having afterwards myself become a pensioner.”

Nevertheless, Cobbett, who could thus taunt Johnson with inconsistency and baseness, presents in his person the most remarkable instance on record of similar baseness and inconsistency. In the work from which I have just quoted he is continually railing at the House of Commons, and describing it as the "Thieves' House," "a Den of Thieves," and so forth and yet, in the face of all this, he, some years afterwards, put himself forward as a candidate for admission into this thievish fraternity, and, with no little self-complacency and pride, actually took his place as one of its members. In all this we have nothing but a new version of the Fable of "the Fox and the Grapes. When Johnson compiled his Dictionary he had as little hope of ever becoming a favourite with the ministers of the Crown and a recipient of the Government bounty, as Cobbett had, at a subsequent period, of ever finding his way into the House of Commons. Each was the dupe of his own conceit; and each, after his fashion, thought he could show his independence by sneering at the object which he secretly coveted, but which he imagined to be beyond his reach.

Much of the blundering for which our prose writers are conspicuous, may be traced to their incautious adoption of foreign words and modes of expression. Among these there are few of more frequent occurrence than "sobriquet," commonly written "soubriquet," a word unknown to the French language; and "coûte que coûte," which invariably figures in the meaningless form of "coûte qui coûte," or "coûte qu'il coûte."

Every day we meet with the expression "a sous," the

," the persons who employ it not being aware that the final s makes a plural of the word "sou." The use of "a sous," by Englishmen, is analogous to that of "un pence," so common among Frenchmen in those countries where the British currency is established.

An instance of this kind occurs in Chenevix. Speaking of the misapplication of epithets or surnames to the kings of France, he says:

"Some of the former kings were indeed misnamed, as Philip the August, who showed himself so petty in his conduct towards Richard of England."-Essay on National Character.

The error here arises from the supposed analogy between "Philippe Auguste," and such appellations as "Charles le Téméraire " and

Philippe le Bel," which has led the writer to mistake a proper name for a sobriquet. But the presence of the article le makes all the difference. The latter names are correctly translated "Charles the Bold," "Philip the