Protestants, this invincible truth, that the Pope's supremacy has no foundation in Scripture, nor in the primitive history of the church. That it has not, I have endeavoured to prove in my former letter, by shewing, from the natural construction of the context, that our Saviour, in his discourse to the Apostles, did not promise to build his church on St. Peter; and from the first establishment of the Church, that it was not so founded; but on his confession, THE MESSIAHSHIP OF Jesus.

To what I have there said, I take this opportunity of adding a few words, in answer to a challenge which Popish writers have been accustomed to hold out on this subject:-"We defy them to shew any passage of any Father, that excludes St. Peter." Every passage in the comments of the Fathers which confines our Saviour's promise to the confession of St. Peter, does, in effect, exclude the person of St. Peter. Such as the following passages of Chrysostom:-" On this rock, that is, on the faith, which St. Peter had confessed." (In Matth. xvi. 18.) "Christ said that he would build his church on the confession of St. Peter: "-(In Joh. i. 50.) Many other passages of the Fathers to the same purpose may be seen in Juell, Barrow, Leslie, Leslie's Vin, dicator, &c. which as clearly exclude St. Peter, as if they had said, not on St. Peter, but on his confession. Cyrill, however, expresses himself more strongly:-Christ gave the name of the rock to nothing else, but to the unshaken and most constant faith of the disciple." (De S. Trin. Dial. 4.) But Chrysos

tom, or some ancient writer in his name, says more expressly, but not more significantly: :-"Upon this rock; he said not upon Peter; for he did not build his church on the man, but on his faith." Chrysost. Tom. 5. Or. 163.)

The judgment, therefore, of the Fathers is adverse to the supremacy of the Pope by confining the promise of our Saviour to the confession of St. Peter, and excluding the person of the Apostle. And the history of the primitive church is not more favourable to it. Indeed down as low as the end of the sixth century the title of universal Bishop was considered by Gregory the Great, not merely as unscriptural, but as "vain, impious, execrable, blasphemous, antichristian." It was however given to a successor of Gregory in the next century by the centurion Emperor. But the nefarious instrument, by whom it was bestowed, could not confer on it validity or authority. "The imperial edict, if we may so call the edict of an usurper, and a tyrant, was not, as the popish writers pretend, a bare confirmation of the primacy, but the grant of a new title, which the Pope immediately improved into a power, answering to the title. And thus was the power of the Pope, as universal Bishop, or head of the church, or, in other words, the Papal Supremacy, first introduced."†

*Bower's Hist. of the Popes, Vol. II. p. 507. Forbes in bis excellent Instructiones Historico-Theologica, Lib. xvi. c. vii. §. 16. 21. says :-Nomen universalis abjudicat Gregorius, ut sce lestum, antichristianum,, diabolicum, et hereticum; in isto enim scelesto vocabulo consentire, nihil est aliud, quam fidem perdere.

+ Bower's History of the Popes, Vol. H. p. 548. ́See also Dr. Hammond's Works, Vol. II. p. 256.

As to the history, then, of the Pope's supremacy, as universal Bishop, it was unknown in fact, and condemned in principle, down to the end of the sixth century. But if the sense of scripture, the judgment of the Fathers, and the evidence of history have no weight against the authority of the Romish Church; we may ask further, if, in this country at least, the Pope's supremacy is defensible on any rational grounds? Is it not contrary to every constitutional principle of a free and independent government? Let us hear, what the great master of the revolutionary drama, now acting in Europe, has said on the subject. Fas est et ab hoste doceri. In his address to the Legislative Body at Paris (Nov. 1809), he says: "The Popes, become sovereigns of part of Italy, have constantly shewn themselves enemies of every preponderating power on the Peninsula. They have employed their spiritual power to injure it.—It was then demonstrated to me, that the spiritual influence exercised in my states by a foreign Sovereign, was contrary to the independence of France, to the dignity and safety of my throne." In his address to the Legislative Body in June, 1811, he "The union of Rome is the only means, says: whereby that proper influence, which the Pope ought to possess over spiritual concerns, can be reņdered compatible with the principles of the empire, which cannot suffer any foreign Bishop to exercise an authority therein."

We have seen before from how unjust and corrupt a source the title of universal Bishop originated.

But ifthe Roman Emperors had possessed ever so legitimate a right to establish one supreme head over the whole Roman church; they had no power to extend such authority beyond the limits of the Empire; and the Bishop of Rome, the constituted head of the imperial church, had still less right to assume it. Britain had long ceased to be a part of the Roman empire, when Gregory, the very Pope who so forcibly reprobated the title of universal Bishop, sent Austin here for the conversion of the Saxons, and for the establishment of a new spiritual jurisdiction. The Britons, as might have been expected, disclaimed all subjection to his authority.

But some Romish writers pretend that the Bishop of Rome has a right to obedience from this country, on account of Austin's having planted Christianity here in his mission from the Pope. That Christianity was not first introduced into Britain by Austin, the seven bishops, whom he found here, and the metropolitan whom they acknowledged, are a sufficient proof. And, that Christianity was never extinct, but had existed here from its first introduction by St. Paul, every century that preceded the arrival of Austin, has its own historical evidence. In the sixth century we have the synod of Llanddewi Brefi; in the fifth, the suppression of the Pelagian heresy ; in the fourth, the presence of British bishops at the councils of Arles, Sardica, and Ariminium, and, probably, Nice; in the third and fourth, the Diocletian persecution; in the second, Lucius's publick protection of Christianity; in the first, the preach

ing of St. Paul, and, perhaps, of other apostles, òr apostolical men.*

Among the valuable evidences of the British church in the fourth century, we have two testimonies of Jerome to the independence of the British church, and its sufficiency for salvation. Of the latter he says: "The way is open to Heaven from Britain as well as from Jerusalem :" Et de Hierosolymis et de Britannia æqualiter patet aula cœlestis. (Epist. 13. ad. Paulinum, Op. Vol. I. p. 103.) Of the independence of the churches of Gaul, Britain, Africa, &c. as parts of one universal church, he says: "Nec altera Romanæ Urbis ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda est. Et Galliæ, et Britanniæ, et Africa, et Persis, et Oriens, et India, et omnes barbaræ nationes unum Christum ' adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis. Si authoritas quæritur, Orbis major est Urbe. Ubicunque. fuerit Episcopus, sive Romæ, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriæ, sive Tanis ; ejusdem meriti est, ejusdem et sacerdotii." (Epist. ad Euagrium, Op. Vol. I. p. 334.)

The author of the antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon church says: "After a long and doubtful struggle, the religion, with the government of the natives, sunk beneath the persevering efforts of the Saxons."+

Philip and Aristobulus. The traditions concerning Peter, James, Simon Zelotes, and Joseph of Arimathea, are either destitute of evidence, or are full of difficulties and contradictions, which cannot be said of the western travels of St. Paul; nor, I think, of Aristobolus, nor, perhaps, of Philip.

+ Vol. I. p. 7.