REVEREND BRETHREN, THE Discourse, to which my Letter, lately addressed to you, is an introduction, has for its principal object to illustrate one branch of the external evidences of Christianity, namely, the Apostolical origin of the British Church, and its seven Epochs from the first. introduction of the Gospel into Britain, to the rejection of Popery by the British Bishops at the commencement of the seventh Century. These Epochs are Cent. 1. St. Paul's preaching of the Cent. 2, Lucius's public protection of Cent. 3-4. The Diocletian persecution. Cent. 4. The Councils of Arles, Sardica, Cent. 5. The suppression of Pelagianism. Cent. 7. The rejection of Popery by the son, this should induce such recusants to conform to the laws of their country; but if we cannot convince them, that their scruples are unfounded, Protestants, who know them to be unfounded, can have no doubt, that groundless scrupless are not a sufficient reason for dispensing with the Constitution of our country. REVEREND BRETHREN, THE Discourse, to which my Letter, lately addressed to you, is an introduction, has for its principal object to illustrate one branch of the external evidences of Christianity, namely, the Apostolical origin of the British Church, and its seven Epochs from the first introduction of the Gospel into Britain, to the rejection of Popery by the British Bishops at the commencement of the seventh Century. These Epochs are Cent. 1. St. Paul's preaching of the Cent. 2. Lucius's public protection of Cent. 3—4. The Diocletian persecution. Cent. 4. The Councils of Arles, Sardica, Cent. 5. The suppression of Pelagianism. Cent. 7. The rejection of Popery by the In these seven Epochs we have very ample and substantial evidence of Christianity,-a Christian Church in Britain founded by St. Paul, and subsisting for near six Centuries before the arrival of Austin, the Monk,—and in that subsistence a proof of its entire independence on any foreign jurisdiction. Foreign jurisdiction is so obviously inconsis◄ tent with the independence of any nation, that nothing can be more surprising, than that any considerable portion of the subjects of a civilized and free country should adhere to such authority; nothing more reasonable, than that effective barriers should be provided against its dangerous influence. For though (thanks to a kind Providence, and to the barriers provided by our Protestant constitution) that influence is at present dormant in this country, as to any civil consequences; yet we cannot forget what it was for the four centuries preceding the Reformation; and we cannot but know, that the Church of Rome has renounced none of those principles, which were the causes of our separation. The Roman Catholicks of this Empire, who conscientiously acknowledge the Pope's supremacy, and believe, that he and his Church are infallible, have, probably, in that conscientious profession and belief a bias more than equal to any arguments that Protestants can bring against it. But if we cannot persuade them to renounce this unnational and anti-british jurisdiction, we are at least bound to strengthen our own consciences, and to maintain our own duty, by holding up to their view, as well as to our fellow-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 to Protestants on this subject: "We defy them," they say, "to shew any passage of any Father, that excludes St. Peter." Every passage in the comments of the Fathers which confines our |