I am sensible, indeed, that some persons, and those Protestants, are of opinion, that the practice of our kings and other monarchs in this case is far from any proof of right. It ought to be considered as an invasion upon the liberties of the church, which, in the primitive ages, vested the right of choosing bishops in the other comprovincial bishops, by a canon of the first council of Nice.

The objectors ought to shew, that there was either a divine unalterable appointment for this method, or that such a one is, in the nature of things, essential to the welfare of the church. But no divine or apostolical appointment, or at least none that was intended to be unalterable, can be shewn to have been made with regard to this matter. On the contrary, it appears, that the bishops were anciently chosen by the presbyters and people, as well as by the bishops of the province. Nor can this method of election by the comprovincial bishops, which the objectors would have take place, be essential, or constantly necessary, in the nature of things, to the welfare of the church. For it is plain, that the church hath long subsisted, and been in a flourishing condition, and been provided with very good bishops, upon the appointment of princes. Indeed, there is visibly a great expediency for this being done, in order to maintain that good correspondence between the civil government and the church, which is greatly subservient to the welfare of both.

And this being the case, it signifies nothing to allege a canon of the council of Nice (Can. 4. Col

lier's Eccl. Hist. preface, vol. i. p. xiv.) prescribing this method of election by comprovincial bishops. For that council had not, nor could any council have, as I observed before, a right to determine any such matter, in which the welfare of several foreign kingdoms might be concerned, so as to exclude all changes that might be found necessary to be made for the safety or advantage of those kingdoms.

And, indeed, the church of Rome has, in effect, acknowledged, that the method of election then settled was not unalterable; for she has actually changed this method herself, and established that of election by the several deans and chapters pursuant to the nomination of princes, which is to be ratified by the Pope, as we have seen above.

END OF PART III.

THE

CHURCHMAN ARMED

AGAINST

THE ERRORS OF THE TIME.

PART IV.

POPERY.

THE foregoing tracts have, we trust, shewn our

attentive readers the foundation of the Church universal, and of the Church of England. But, since the Church of Rome claims a supremacy over all churches, and insists that those who are not in communion with, nor subjection to, her, are no part of the true church, it becomes necessary to examine into these stupendous claims.

If

Now it would be difficult to find an instance where there was so little ground for any superiority, as in the case of the church of Rome over that of Britain. we are to believe the Popish writers, Suarez and Baronius, this island received the faith nine years before Rome. (See Hammond, vol. ii, and page 105;. and Bull's Letter in this collection). It is certain that, when Austin came to convert its inhabitants,

he found an episcopal establishment already in possession. So that the Roman pretence to superiority is unsupported by the premises on which it is built, as is fully explained in the following tracts. With respect to the succession from St. Peter, it too is involved in endless embarrassments. St. Peter was Prince of the Apostles, and, being Bishop of Rome, at his martyrdom, left his peculiar powers to the bishop who succeeded him. Hence his successor must have been superior to the surviving apostles; St. John for instance, as well as other bishops. But, if, as is most certain, the apostles were of a rank superior to the bishops, St. John, the last surviving apostle, must have died the superior or head of the Christian Church. Then how does it appear that his apostolical authority reverted, on his death, to the then Bishop of Rome, the fifth after St. Peter? Nay, it is exceedingly difficult to prove that St. Peter ever was at Rome; that being one of the most obscure points in Ecclesiastical History. Scripture affords us no evidence of it, nor any writer for the first 300 years. Therefore it is scarcely necessary to justify our revolt from papal usurpation, and our laying aside that load of ceremonies and errors which had been so plentifully attached to Christianity. Be it however understood, that our separation was no schism. Popish authority here was obtained by murder, preserved by the promotion of continual dissentions between the prince and his subjects, reluctantly submitted to at all times, and finally thrown off with the unanimous consent of the monarch and

the people. After the objections made by Luther, to Popery, had induced all serious men to examine for themselves, with what cautious prudence a reform was made in this country, the general approbation of all foreign churches abundantly proves. So evidently indeed did we retain all the essentials of Christianity, in the opinion of even Papists themselves, that Pope Pius the IVth is said to have offered Queen Elizabeth a confirmation of all she had done, provided his supremacy was acknowledged. (See Camden's Elizabeth, and Baker's Chron. An. 1560). This being refused, a spirit of animosity arose, which the lapse of three centures has not extinguished. But Popery remains the same in its tenets and its practices. Nor to prove this truth should we refer to the histories of the Reformation, nor of the times immediately preceding that event, but to the rebellion and murders, which, during the last twenty years, have been perpetrated in Ireland, and which no impartial observer can suppose to have arisen from any other source than the rancour of papists against their fellow subjects, and the hope of success while our country was engaged with its inveterate foe, who at that time, had under his command nearly the whole of the continent. At that time, I repeat, when subjects of any loyalty would patiently have submitted to most grievances, rather than embarrass government, then, and how much less have agitated the whole kingdom for claims, which, if granted, would according to their own avowal, have conferred the bare possibility only, of enjoying places of honour