deemer has thought proper to establish a certain form of ecclesiastical government; a real and substantial change of the form thus established, becomes an unlawful act, a fatal innovation.

The church is denominated by St. Paul one body but to give it this appellation, without admitting a head, that is to connect and unite the various members of this mystical structure, is such an inconsistency, as will admit of no explanation in the system of our opponents. Did not the Almighty establish, under the Jewish dispensation, a high priest, who was to unfold the difficulties of the law, to maintain a supreme authority in spiritual concerns, to prevent confusion, and to consolidate union? and was there not a succession of supreme pontiffs, to carry into effect the same sublime purposes? And is the new law to be left destitute of the same resource? Is the spiritual kingdom of Christ, which was foretold in the most elevated strains of prophecy, as an establishment subsisting for ever, to be abandoned to the wayward fancy of individuals, without a head, a chief governor, a supreme pastor? This is neither agreeable to the dictates of common sense, to analogy, nor to the positive injunctions of the sacred Scripture.

That the successors of Peter have ever possessed, and lawfully exercised a primacy of honour and jurisdiction over the whole church of Christ, is a fact incontrovertibly clear from the

course of ecclesiastical history, from the undeniable authority of general councils, and from the unanimous consent of the whole church, recorded by undoubted and unexceptionable witnesses of tradition. The history of the popes, the successors of St. Peter, presents a spectacle to mankind, altogether unprecedented in the annals of the world. For near eighteen hundred years; whilst every country under the sun has exhibited incessant changes and continual fluctuation, both in the forms of government, and the variety of nations, who have held the sway; whilst England has been ruled successively by five different nations, and other countries of Europe have undergone vicissitudes as numerous; the apostolic See, the chair of Peter, has preserved an unbroken succession of pontiffs to the present day; a succession as regular as that of the kings of England from Edward the Confessor to his present Majesty. During the whole of this period, they have governed the church, superintended the observance of the canons, repressed abuses, decided controversies on subjects of faith, morality, and discipline, called councils, presided in them by their legates, subsequently sanctioned their proceedings, and have performed the duties of holy, active, and vigilant pastors. With every fair and indulgent allowance for human infirmity, we may safely assert, that this long and extended series of

eminent personages, exhibits such splendid instances of piety, talents, skill in the arts of government, profound learning, and general merit, as are not to be paralleled in the whole collection of civil governors, that ever appeared in the world. Some notorious exceptions are unquestionably to be found, by which this general commendation must receive some abatement; but those who consider, that a traitor was found in the college of the twelve apostles, will deem the number comparatively inconsiderable. For the first five hundred years, the sovereign pontiffs were eminently distinguished for their heroic sanctity; for the last three hundred years, they have rendered themselves eminent for piety, talents, and superior merit; and in every age many have been found, whose conduct no less than their station, has entitled them to the appellation of fathers of the faithful.

If we consult the earliest monuments of Christian antiquity, and ascertain the real doctrine of the church from her general councils, we cannot entertain a shadow of doubt, that the successors of Peter, filling the apostolic see of Rome, always exercised a real and efficient supremacy. Let. the learned reader consult the Ecclesiastical History of the venerable Theodoret, and he will find a most remarkable letter, addressed by the second council, held at Constantinople in 381, to Pope Damasus, as well as to the bishops, whom

that pontiff had collected together. In this address, the fathers of the council roundly declare, that they assembled in consequence of a requisition, addressed to them by the Apostolic See, through the medium of the Emperor, and they acknowledge the summons as addressed to members belonging to their head1.

Another fact of the same description is, that St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, presided in the third general council, held at Ephesus, in 431, as vicar of Pope Celestine; and the fathers of that council expressly declare, that they proceed with pain to the condemnation of Nestorius, by virtue of the canons and the injunctions contained in the letters of that pontiff". These two events, which took place in a most flourishing period of Christianity, demand no comment; they loudly proclaim the existence of that power, which, to the everlasting infamy of Britain, is so ignorantly, so indelicately, and so impiously blasphemed by persons of every description.

These remarkable documents, which may be deemed sufficiently strong, are exceeded by the proceedings, which took place in the council of Chalcedon, in 451. That great assembly was convened principally for the purpose of condemn

1 See this remarkable document, Hist. Eccles. Theodoret, lib. 5, c. ix.—Καὶ ἡμᾶς ὡς οἰκεῖα μέλη Προσεκαλέσασθε, &c. 2 See Evagr. Hist. Eccles. lib. 1, c. iv. edit. Vales. tom. iii. p. 259, 260.

ing the Eutychian heresy, and of punishing the flagrant and notorious crimes of Dioscorus, the wicked patriarch of Alexandria. At this great council presided St. Leo the Great, the pope at that period, in the persons of his three legates, Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybæum, Lucentius, bishop of Ascoli, and Boniface, a priest of Rome. Here, with the perfect acquiescence of the council, the Pope is styled the Bishop of Rome, the head of all churches; his supremacy is unequivocally acknowledged by the whole proceedings of the synod; his legates bring forward the charges against Dioscorus; and one head of accusation is, that he had presumed to call a council, without the authority of the Roman pontiff; which, it was alleged, never was done, and never can be done; Dioscorus, at the motion of the legates, is dismissed from the council as a judge, in order afterwards to appear by citation. The proceedings are then amply discussed, and a sentence of condemnation against Dioscorus is pronounced by the legates in the name of the pope and the council. After the recital of the crimes of the accused party, the sentence is closed in the following terms: "Whence Leo, the most holy Archbishop of Great Rome, by us and by the present council, together with St. Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic church, and the pillar of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him