union inevitable, and the only question that remains is, how to bring that Repeal about as we achieved emancipation." And another catastrophe may await, those individuals, who have ignobly stooped from an elevated situation of society, to gorge the voracious appetites of the mob, than the bombastic swaggering of another

Irish Churches, in reference to the See and Jurisdiction of the Court of Rome, at the period of the first establishmeut of Christianity in these countries, and for a lengthened period afterwards; would do well, to consult throughout, the very learned, valuable, and truly "Protestant Catechism" of The Right Rev. Dr. Burgess, Lord Bishop of Salisbury. Also the six first chapters of the illustrious Usher's Discourse on the Religion anciently professed by the Irish and British," with Leland's Hist. of Ireland, vol. i. chap. i., and Blackstone's Commentaries, lib. iv. cap. 8.; where will be fully shown the continued, and determined struggles, which our Ancestors made so unceasingly from age to age,- even long antecedent to the days of Henry VIII., or our Reformers,-to maintain their Ancient and Established claims of independance, against the threatening tyranny, and pressing encroachments of Papal policy. And to expose the shallow pretensions of the alledged Antiquity of the doctrines of Popery in England, in peculiar reference, to the last finished Masterstroke of Romanism, conveyed in the decrees of the Council of Trent ;-it is only neceesary to compare them, with the doctrines taught by Pope Gregory the Great or First, A. D. 590; who condemned the Antichristian title of Universal Bishop, in his great rival, the Patriarch of Constantinople; and publicly branded, the impious usurpation, of his universally acknowledged coëqual Patriarch-John, in his profane claim of universal dominant Supremacy, and monarchical power, over the whole Church Catholic; in such opprobrious and striking language as, "My Fellow-priest John, attempts to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim: O times! O manners! Priests seek to themselves names of Vanity; and glory in New and Profane appellations. Far from the very hearts of Christians be that Name of Blasphemy, in which the honour of all priests is taken away, while it is madly arrogated to himself by a single individual !!! (Pap. Gregor. I. Epist. lib. iv. epist. 32.—" Consacerdos meus Joannes, &c.") Again, says the same Pope Gregory,-" No one of my predecessors ever consented to use this so Profane Appellation. But far, very far, be it from a Christian mind, that any person should wish to Snatch to himself a Title, whence he may seem, even in any the very smallest degree, to diminish the honour of his brethren!!!" (Epist. 36.) Again, Gregory adds, in addressing his celebrated letter of expostulation, to his presumptuous brother of Constantinople,-" in the use of so Perverted a title, who, I ask, is proposed for thy imitation, save he, who, despising the legions of angels, constituted in a Social Equality with himself, endeavoured to break forth to the sum

Delegate of Popish dregs,-another puny but purulent champion of Priestling's power:-a championship which has procured for him, as well as for many others,

66

a local habitation and a name ;"-who, otherwise, would have remained long deep buried in the soil, which, by their advocacy of the lawless and the rabble,

mit of an Unapproached Singularity?-To consent to the adoption of that Wicked Appellation is nothing less than to Apostatise from the faith." (Epist. 38.) In this passage Gregory evidently draws a parallel, between the proud claim, of John's assumed supreme monarchical domination, which was subsequently seized upon, even to a more horrid and blasphemous extent, by this very Gregory's own successors, and the present Popes (See "CHAMPION," No. 1. p. 5-13, and notes.); and between the super-extravagant vaunts of the power and ambitious designs of Lucifer,- -a fit emblem of Satan, prince of the apostate angels; of whom, Isaiah, in his sublime description (Isa. xiv. 13, 14.) speaks, as exultingly, and boastingly exclaiming, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God," i. e. "above God's ministers," who, according to Vitringa, are called after the Eastern manner- -" stars of God." And in (v. 14.) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High." (See CHAMPION No. 1. p. 3.) But once more, says our honest Gregory, "I indeed confidently assert, that, whosoever either calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest; that person, in his vain elation, is the Precursor of Antichrist: because through his Pride, he Exalts himself Above the Others." (Epist. 30.) Here also a similar allusion is made to Isaiah's Lucifer. . And lastly says Gregory, "my brother and Fellow-Bishop John, despising the commands of our Lord, the precepts of the Apostles, the rules of the Fathers, endeavours, through his boasting, to be in name, a Harbinger of Antichrist." Here, with strict justice, Gregory impugns the Antichristian violation of the mutual independence, and proper coëquality, of the two great ecclesiastical Patriarchs, which, his Eastern Brother is guilty of;-by a Positive Appeal to Revelation, to the Fathers, to the acknowledged practice of the Church, and, consequently, to Councils. It may not be denied, that Hildebrand, whose life, and character, and destination, the knowing sagacity of Modern Wits, has detected, even in the formation of his name,-“ Brand,” and "Hell:"-by no means, methinks, an unfit mystical emblem of the obscure ambitious monk, when metamorphised into the aweinspiring scowl, the murderous projects, the monstrous horrors of Gregory VII.; who, as Gibbon, piquantly says, "may be adored or detested as the Founder of the Papal Monarchy." (Dec. and Fall, vol. xii. p. 266.) It cannot be denied, I say, that this Holy, Pious, Infallible and Sainted (!!!) authority, tells us, (Lib. 2. epist. 55.) that, the Roman Pontiff alone, is rightly called Universal; "—or, that the Gallican Church rejects the Pope's absolute authority, and spiritual supremacy, and the infallibility of his dogmas, when they

has been accidently made to hasten, and nurture their mushroom growth. The Gentleman, to whom I allude (Sheil) had the impudent affrontery, to declare, in the British House of Commons, in a speech on the Tithe question,-"the Democracy will become gigantic, and the people will have their revenge." Such

are only delivered per se, or ex-cathedra. All this, however, is of little consequence, among the infallible authorities of Romanism; for, we find innumerable examples of Popes against Popes; Councils against Councils; Churches against Churches; Sects against Sects; one Century against another Century'; Doctors against Doctors; Theologians against Theologians; and Decrees against Decrees!!! But it is an undeniable fact, that the First Four General Councils, early, and most strenuously, resisted the arrogant claims and pretensions, of the dominant Monarchical authority, and Ecclesiastical Supremacy, of the See, and Popes of Rome. As for example, the General Council of Nice, held A. D. 325, which marked out the respective jurisdictions of the independant, and coëqual Bishops of Alexandria, and Rome; and also, with regard to Antioch, and the other Eparchies, decreed, that," their Privileges be severally preserved to the Churches;" — τὰ πρεσβεῖα σώζεσθαι ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.”(See Concil. Nic. I. can. vi. in the very valuable "Synodicon; sive Pandectæ Canonum S. S. Apostolorum et Conciliorum ab Eccles. Græcâ receptorum,” by Bishop Beveridge, vol. i. p. 66. Le Clerc's Bibliotheque Universelle, tom. x. p. 435-454. And particularly Euseb. Renaudot, in his Historia Patriarcharum Alexand. Jacobit. p. 69.) The next General Council, that, held at Constantinople,-received by the Latin Church, as absolutely infallible, as all the other General Councils are held in similar estimation ;;-was convened, A. D. 381, and consisted of one hundred and fifty Bishops. It ordained, that Rome, should have first rank or precedence of order (τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιμῆς); as to sit first, vote first, in the General Councils; on account of its Ancient Imperial Dignity, and having once been the Metropolis of the Pagan Roman Empire; but allotted the next to Constantinople, as the Present Seat of Empire :-And this Council expressly prohibited appeals to Rome from the other Dioceses. From which it appears, that the Precedence of Rank given to Rome, was perfectly irrespective of Spirituals, or Ecclesiastical claims; not only, from considering the alledged reason of this Infallible Council, but also from its assigning to Constantinople, the secularly appointed Metropolis of the Western World, and Seat of Roman temporal Sovereignty,-a participation of equal honour with the Bishop of Rome. The words of the Council are,—“ μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμην,”—i. e. "next to the Bishop of Rome, because (Constantinople being the present Metropolis of the Empire) of its being New Rome." In this exposition all the writers of Antiquity concur. Balsamon and Aristenus, being the most prominent and oracular, of the commentators upon the Decrees

political Mountebanks as these, Sir, assisted by their Spiritual, Episcopal guides, who occasionally exhibit in their Pious Pastorals, the artillery, of popular excitation; and skilfully whirl about their croziers, like the wand of Prospero, to raise a whirlwind of contentious elements;-may goad on still further, to

of Synods, it may not be superfluous to add, teach precisely the same thing. Balsamon refers the preposition μɛrà or “next,” to chronological succession; inasmuch, as Rome, being prior to Constantinople in mere order of time, was also the superior, as to the Antiquity and Magnitude of the respective cities. (See Balsam. Comment. upon Concil. Constan. can. iii. p. 89; in Bp. Beveridge's Synodicon.) Likewise Aristenus, (Comment. ibid. p. 90.) explains the decree thus, "The Bishop of Constantinople was held in honour next to the Bishop of Rome. And the Bishop of Constantinople will participate in the very same privileges, and in the very same honour (τῶν αὐτῶν πρεσβείων καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς μεθέξει τιμῆς) with the Bishop of Rome. In the same manner also, the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon interpreted this very canon, because of the Eastern Capital being New Rome, and honoured with the seat of Imperial Dignity (by Constantine the Great, A. D. 330 or 334), and the other appendages of royalty and government. For "next" (μɛtà) is manifestly used here in allusion, not to honour but to time (οὐ τῆς τιμῆς, ἀλλὰ τοῦ χρόνου); just as if one were to say that after (μETa) a considerable lapse of time, the Bishop of Constantinople, became a Partaker of Equal (ions) honour with the Bishop of Rome.” (Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. viii. Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. cap. vii.) As I may here observe, that nothing is more true, than the wise man's saying, that, "only by pride cometh contention" (Prov. xiii. 10.); so by this sudden revolution in the ecclesiastical government, and this unexpected promotion of the Eastern Bishop to a higher rank, to the detriment of other prelates of the first eminence in the church; there resulted the most disagreeable effects produced by that religious and national animosity, which still divides the two largest communions in the Christian World. For this promotion, not only filled the bishops of Alexandria with the bitterest aversion to those of Constantinople, since the former as well as the Bishops of Antioch, were reduced in the scale of precedency by the decrees of this Council; but also excited those deplorable contentions and disputes between the Eastern Patriarchs and Roman Pontiffs, which were carried on, for many ages, with such various success; and concluded, at length, in the entire separation of the Latin and Greek churches, which very speedily followed the translation or restoration of the Western Empire by Charlemagne, after he had conquered the kingdom of Lombardy (A. D. 774); when he was received in the Capital of Italy, by Pope Adrian the First, in a public procession, amidst the greatest exultation and triumph, as the Deliverer of Rome; accompanied by a vast procession, and met by

deeds of blood, their infatuated vassals;-and in the broad light of mid-day, stain our hallowed altars with more of the blood of the venerable Ministers of our Sanctuaries;—and with the co-operation of the CHURCHLESS members of the schismatical and republican Babel of Dissenterism, may for a season, share the

the Holy Father at the head of his Clergy; mutually embracing as friends and equals; and as a victorious Monarch, assuming, in their march to the altar, the right hand of the Pope. (See Liber Pontificalis, tom. iii. pars. i.) But Adrian's joy, surely, would have been diminished, if he had known, that, though he had been rescued by the sword of Charlemagne; still, for years, that he, and his successors, were to be subject to the Conqueror's sceptre :-in whose name, money was to be coined, justice administered, and the very election of the Popes themselves, examined and confirmed by his authority. And at the expiration of twenty-six years after the conquest of Lombardy; Charlemagne, to the previously assumed and exercised prerogatives of Monarchical power, at length received the Imperial Coronation, in the church of St. Peter, from the hands of Pope Leo III. (A. D. 800.); whilst the dome resounded with the acclamations of the people, "long life and victory to Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God, the great and pacific emperor of the Romans!" It may not be inapplicable to my present design, to mention, as a subsidiary incident, illustrative of the subjectmatter of thenote, attached to ("CHAMPION," No. 1, Page 5.), that, the partisans of the Roman Pontiffs, generally maintain, that, Leo III., who prostituted his Sacred Keys, and the liberties of the Roman People, to the ambitious hero of the Carlovingian race;—by a divine right vested in him as Bishop of Rome, transported, the western empire from the Greeks to the Franks, and conferred it upon Charlemagne, the monarch of the latter. From hence they conclude that the Roman Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ, is the Supreme Lord of the whole earth, and, in a particular manner of the Roman Empire. But, here, as usual, is Blasphemy, Usurpation, and Intrigue, raised on a pedestal of similar materials. These absurd sycophants and minions of Papal supremacy and Romish ascendancy, should have known and recollected by what a sacrilegious outrage, the Father of Charlemagne--Pepin, obtained the government of the Franks. They should have borne in mind, the infamous stratagem, by which, the lawful King, Childeric III., the last descendant of Clovis, -in whose veins flowed the pure and sacred blood of the only surviving representative of the ancient Merovingian race,—was unlawfully disposessed of his throne, by an ambitious usurper. If they disguised the origin of the Carlovingian dynasty, the authentic page of history readily supplies the want. Pepin was mayor of the Palace of Childeric, of enterprizing genius, and a boundless ambition. Though hewas bound, as well as all the other Nobles, by the sanctity of their oaths to their unoffending Monarch, yet Pope Zachary