happiness, "can no man lay." All they spoke either in public or private, centred in this one point, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever."

More particularly, they preached, that "a man is justified by faith, without the works of the law;" that "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

X. They preached farther, that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God:" except he be "born from above," born not only of water, but "of the Holy Ghost:" and that the present "kingdom of God is not meats and drinks," (lies not in externals of any kind,) but righteousness, the image of God on the heart, peace, even a peace that passeth all understanding, and joy in the Holy Ghost, whereby they rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory.

They declared, that he that is thus "born of God doth not commit sin;" that "he that is begotten of God, keepeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not ;" but that as Christ who hath called him is holy, so is he holy in all manner of conversation.

XI. As to the manner of their preaching, they spoke with authority, as speaking not their own word, but the word of him that sent them, and" by manifestation of the truth, commending themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." They were "not as many that corrupt the word of God," debase and adulterate it with foreign mixtures, "but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, spake they in Christ." They approved themselves the ministers of God, "in much patience, in labours, in watchings, in fastings: by pureness, by knowledge," knowing all their flock by name, all their circumstances, all their wants: "by long-suffering, never weary of well-doing, by kindness, by love unfeigned: by the word of truth, by the power of God attending it, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand, and on the left." Hence they were "instant in season, out of season," being never afraid of the faces of men, never ashamed of Christ or of his words, even before an adulterous and sinful generation. They went on unmoved through "honour and dishonour," through "evil report and good report." They regarded not father or mother, or wife or children, or houses or lands, or ease or pleasure: but having this single end in view, to save their own souls, and those that heard them, they "counted not their lives dear unto themselves, so that they might make full proof of their ministry, so they might finish their course with joy, and testify the gospel of the grace of God."

Let all the right reverend, the bishops, and the reverend the elergy, only walk by this rule: let them thus live, and thus testify with one heart and one voice, the gospel of the grace of God; and every Papist within these four seas, will soon acknowledge the truth as it is in Jesus.

A LETTER

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER,

OCCASIONED BY THE LATE ACT PASSED IN FAVOUR OF POFERY.

TO WHICH IS ADDED,

A DEFENCE OF IT, IN TWO LETTERS

TO THE EDITORS OF THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL, DUBLIN.

SIR,

A Letter to the Printer of the Public Advertiser.

SOME time ago, a pamphlet was sent me, entitled, “An Appeal from the Protestant Association, to the People of Great Britain.” A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put into my hand, which pronounces "its style contemptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious." On the contrary, I think the style of it is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning (in general) strong and conclusive; the object, or design, kind and benevolent. And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavour to confirm the substance of that Tract, by a few plain arguments.

With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man for his religious principles. Let there be as "boundless a freedom in religion," as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the point I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the question, Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the Koran to be the Word of God. I consider not, whether the Romish religion be true or false; I build nothing on one or the other supposition, Therefore away with all your common-place declamation about intolerance and persecution for religion. Suppose every word of Pope Pius's creed to be true; suppose the Council of Trent to have becn infallible yet, I insist upon it, That no government not Roman Catholic, ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion. I prove this by a plain argument: (let him answer it that can.) -That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable behaviour, I prove thus. It is a Roman Catholic maxim, established not by private men, but by a public council, that "No faith is to be kept with heretics." This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it never was openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the church of Rome. But as long as it is so, nothing can

be more plain, than that the members of that church can give no reasonable security to any government of their allegiance or peaceable behaviour. Therefore, they ought not to be tolerated by any government, Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan.

You may say, " Nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance." True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, "No faith is to be kept with heretics," sweeps them all away as a spider's web. So that still, no governors that are not Roman Catholics, can have any security for their allegiance.

Again. Those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the Pope can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but all Roman Catholics acknowledge this: therefore, they can give no security for their allegiance.

The power of granting pardons for all sins, past, present, and to come, is and has been for many centuries one branch of his spiritual power.

But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power, can give no security for their allegiance: since they believe the Pope can pardon rebellions, high treason, and all other sins whatsoever.

The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is another branch of the spiritual power of the Pope. And all who acknowledge his spiritual power, must acknowledge this. But whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope can give no security of his allegiance to any government.

Oaths and promises are none; they are light as air, a dispensation makes them all null and void.

Nay, not only the Pope, but even a priest has power to pardon sins! -This is an essential doctrine of the church of Rome. But they that acknowledge this, cannot possibly give any security for their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no security at all; for

the priest can pardon both perjury and high treason.

Setting then religion aside, it is plain, that upon principles of reason, no government ought to tolerate men, who cannot give any security to that government for their allegiance and peaceable behaviour. But this no Romanist can do, not only while he holds, that "No faith is to be kept with heretics," but so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution, or the spiritual power of the Pope.

But the late Act," you say, "does not either tolerate or encourage Roman Catholics." I appeal to matter of fact. Do not the Romanists themselves understand it as a toleration? You know they do. And does it not already, (let alone what it may do by-and-by,) encourage them to preach openly, to build chapels, (at Bath and elsewhere,) to raise seminaries, and to make numerous converts day by day to their intolerant, persecuting principles? I can point out, if need be, several of the persons. And they are increasing daily.

But "nothing dangerous to English liberty is to be apprehended from them." I am not certain of that. Some time since, a Romish priest came to one I knew; and after talking with her largely, broke

out, "You are no heretic! You have the experience of a real Christian !" "And would you," she asked, "burn me alive?" He said, "God forbid !-Unless it were for the good of the church!"

Now what security could she have had for her life, if it had depended on that man? The good of the Church would have burst all ties of truth, justice, and mercy. Especially when seconded by the absolution of a priest, or (if need were) a papal pardon.

If any one please to answer this, and to set his name, I shall probably reply. But the productions of anonymous writers, I do not promise to take any notice of.

I am, Sir, your humble servant,

City-Road, Jan. 21, 1780.

JOHN WESLEY.

TO THE READER.

SEVERAL months since, Father O'Leary, a Capuchin Friar, in Dublin, published Remarks upon this Letter in the Freeman's Journal. As soon as these were sent to me, I published a Reply in the same Paper. When I read more of his Remarks, printed in five succeeding Journals, I wrote a second Reply, but did not think it worth while to follow, step by step, so wild, rambling a writer.

Mr. O'Leary has now put his Six Letters into One, which are reprinted in London, with this title, "Mr. O'Leary's Remarks on the Rev. Mr. W.'s Letters in defence of the Protestant Associations in England to which are prefixed Mr. Wesley's Letters."

Is it by negligence or by design, that there are so many mistakes even in a title page?

1. "To which are prefixed Mr. W.'s Letters." No: the second of those Letters is not mine. I never saw it before.

2. But where are the two Letters published in the Freeman's Journal? Why is a spurious Letter palmed upon us, and the genuine ones suppressed?

3. "Letters in defence of the Protestant Associations in England." Hold! In my first Letter I have only three lines in defence of a Tract published in London. But I have not one line "in defence of the Associations," either in London or elsewhere.

If Mr. O'Leary will seriously answer the two following Letters, he may expect a serious Reply. But if he has only drollery and low wit to oppose to argument, I shall concern myself no further about him.

London, Dec. 29, 1780..

LETTER I.

To the Editors of the Freeman's Journal.

GENTLEMEN,

1. Mr. O'Leary does well to entitle his Paper Remarks; as that word may mean any thing or nothing; but it is no more an answer to my Letter, than to the Bull Unigenitus. He likewise does wisely in prefacing his Remarks with so handsome a compliment: this may naturally incline you to think well of his judgment, which is no small point gained.

2. His manner of writing is easy and pleasant, but might it not as well be more serious? The subject we are treating of is not a light one; it moves me to tears rather than to laughter. I plead for the safety of my country; yea, for the children that are yet unborn. "But cannot your country be safe, unless the Roman Catholics are persecuted for their religion?" Hold! Religion is out of the question: but I would not have them persecuted at all. I would only have them hindered from doing hurt: I would not put it in their power, (and I do not wish that others should,) to cut the throats of their quiet neighbours. "But they will give security for their peaceable behaviour." They cannot while they continue Roman Catholics: they cannot while they are members of that church which receives the decrees of the Council of Constance, which maintains the spiritual power of the Bishop of Rome, or the doctrine of priestly absolution.

3. This I observed in my late Letter; whoever therefore would remark upon it to any purpose, must prove these three things: 1. That the decree of the Council of Constance publicly made, has been publicly disclaimed. 2. That the Pope has not power to pardon sins, or to dispense with oaths, vows, and promises: and, 3. But has Mr. O'Leary That no priest has power to pardon sins. proved these three points? Has he proved any one of them? He has indeed said something upon the first. He denies such a decree was ever made.

4. I am persuaded Mr. O'Leary is the first man that ever made the important discovery. But before he is quite sure, let him look again into Father L'Abbe's Concilia Maxima, printed at Paris in the year 1672. The last volume contains a particular account of the Council of Constance: one of whose decrees, page 169, is, "That Heretics ought to be put to death, Non obstantibus salvis conductibus Imperatoris, Regum, &c." notwithstanding the public faith engaged Who then can affirm that no to them in the most solemn manner. such doctrine or violation of faith with Heretics is authorized by this Council? Without putting on spectacles, (which, blessed be God, I