cil deserve the same praise, seeing they urged him to embrue his hands in innocent blood, in violation of the public faith, and extolled him to the skies for so doing: and seeing they have laid it down as a maxim that the most solemn promise made to a heretic may be broken.

"But, says Mr. O'Leary, This regards the peculiar case of safe-conducts granted by Princes to heretics'-But what then? If the public faith with heretics may be violated in one instance, it may be in a thousand- But can the rule be extended further?'-I may; it must; we cannot tell where to stop.-Away then with your witticisms on so awful a subject. What! do you sport with human blood? I take burning men alive to be a very serious thing. I pray spare your jests on the occasion.-Again, What more absurd than to insist on a General Council's disclaiming a doctrine they never taught' They did teach it: and that not by the bye, not incidentally; but they laid it down as a stated rule of action, dictated by the Holy Ghost-and demonstrated their sincerity therein by burning a man alive. And this Mr. O'Leary humourously compares to roasting a piece of beef! With equal tenderness, I suppose, he would compare the 'Singeing the beards of heretics that is thrusting a burning furzebush in their face, to the singeing a fowl before it is roasted.-Now, what security can any Romanist give a Protestant till this doctrine is publicly abjured? If Mr. O'Leary has any thing more to plead for this Council, I shall follow him step by step. But let him keep his word, and Give a serious answer to a serious charge.' Drollery may come in, when we are talking of roasting fowls, but not when we talk of roasting men.'

"Would I then wish the Roman-Catholics to be persecuted? I never said or hinted any such thing. I abhor the thought it is foreign to all I have preached and written for these fifty years. But I would wish the Romanists in England (I had no others in view) to be treated still with the same lenity that they have been these sixty years: to be allowed both civil and religious liberty, but not permitted

to

to undermine Ours. I wish them to stand just as they did, before the late Act was passed: not to be persecuted, or hurt themselves; but gently restrained from hurting their neighbours.

I am,

Gentlemen,

Your obedient Servant,

Chester, March 31, 1780.

JOHN WESLEY."

Notwithstanding the high praises bestowed by some persons on Mr. O'Leary, at the time of this controversy, the impartial reader will easily observe, that Mr. Wesley had greatly the advantage in point of argument. Mr. O'Leary, to all intents and purposes, allows the charge Mr. Wesley brought against the Council of Constance; and yet afterwards affects to deny it.-Mr. Berrington wrote to Mr. Wesley in defence of the same Council; and in a private letter observes, "There never was a decision made at Constance tending to shew, that, No faith is to be kept with heretics. The words of the Canon are not susceptible of such a comment, unless tortured to it. At all events no Council, Pope, Bishop, Priest, or Layman of our church ever understood them in the sense of your interpretation. -But every Catholic Divine has at all times, in writing on the subject, utterly reprobated the idea of breaking faith with heretics, as contrary to every dictate of reason and religion."-These, undoubtedly, are very extraordinary assertions, but there is no proof. With regard to the Council of Constance, if the words of the Canon are indeed ambiguous, which some persons do not think, yet, the burning a man alive, in open violation of the public faith, was certainly a very plain comment upon them, which can hardly leave a doubt behind

Which was never published.

-But

---But what shall we say to the words that follow, "Every Catholic Divine has at all times utterly reprobated the We do not idea of breaking faith with heretics." know that Mr. Wesley answered this letter, for there would be no end of answering groundless assertions. The modern rulers of the Church of Rome in Catholic countries, speak on this subject in a strain very different from that of Mr. Berrington. In 1768, an oath of allegiance was in contemplation for the RomanCatholics of Ireland, which, for the better security of Government, contained a declaration of abhorrence and detestation of the doctrines, "That faith is not to be kept with heretics, and that Princes deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects." The Pope's legate at Brussels, Ghilini, Archbishop of Rhodes, had then the superintendence of the Romish Church in Ireland. He wrote on this subject, to the titular Archbishop of Dublin, and in his letter, treats the above clauses proposed in the oath, as absolutely intolerable. Because, says he, those doctrines are DEFENDED, and CONTENDED for, by most Catholic nations, and the Holy See has frequently followed them in practice. On the whole he decides, "That, as the oath is in its whole extent unlawful, so in its nature it is invalid, null, and of no effect, so that it can by no means bind and oblige consciences." This letter was published by Thomas de Burgo (Burke) titular Bishop of Ossory, and public historiographer to the Dominican order in Ireland, in his appendix to his Hibernia Dominicana, printed in 1772; together with three similar ones the other three titular metropolitans, and stiled by the Bishop, Literæ veré aureæ cedroque digna.*

That

* See Erskine's Sketches and Hints of Church History, p. 131.

That similar decisions on the validity of oaths detrimental to the interests of the Holy See, were uniformly made by successive Popes, whenever the affairs of the Church required them, is well known. It was intended to have brought forward a few of them, but it is unnecessary. What has been said fully proves the charge Mr. Wesley brought " It is a maxim of the Church of Rome that faith is not to be kept with heretics." It has been taught again and again, by the first authority in this Church, that the Roman-Catholics are not bound to any engagements made with heretics, though confirmed by the most solemn oath that can possibly be framed, when the good of the Church requires they should break it. This was not only an ancient doctrine of the Church in the times of great ignorance; but we have already seen that the modern rulers of it maintain the same doctrine and contend for it. And what wonder? when we consider, 1. That the old spirit of Popery is still kept up, by the practice of the Pope, to the present time: once every year, on Maunday-Thursday, he excommunicates all heretics in the most awful and terrific manner; and thus keeps up a constant spirit of hatred in the minds of Catholics against the Protestants. And, 2. That the Romish bishops take an oath at their consecration, totally inimical to every Protestant Government, and which binds them to use every method in their power to subvert it-The following is a part of the oath : "The Roman Papacy, and the Royalties of St. Peter, I will, order, assist them (the Pope and his retain and defend against every man. The rights, honours, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman Church, and of our lord the Pope, and his successors aforesaid, I will be careful to preserve, defend, en

saving my own successors) to

large,

large, and promote. All heretics, schismatics, and rebels against our said lord, I will, to the utmost of my power, persecute (persequar) and oppose, and never lay down my weapons till they are utterly brought under and rooted out." -The word persequar, is ambiguous, but Dr. William Hales, formerly of Trinity College, Dublin, in his Survey of the modern state of the Church of Rome, has proved that the clause, hereticos pro posse persequar, et expugnabo, is an obligation to persecute heretics, and oppose them with temporal weapons; and that this appears to be the şense of the Church of Rome, both from her decrees and practice, and even from late instances of persecuting zeal in the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition.*

In the course of this year, some persons in America, attached to the doctrines, and to the ritual of the Church of England, wrote to Mr. Wesley, requesting that he would get a young man ordained for them, by one of the bishops in this country. They did not apply to the Society for propagating Christian Knowledge in Foreign Parts, because they did not want pecuniary assistance from that fund. Mr. Wesley wrote to Dr. Lowth, Bishop of London, begging the favour that he would ordain a pious young man for them. The bishop refused; and August 10, Mr. Wesley sent him the following letter,

"MY LORD,

"Some time since I received your Lordship's favour, for which I return your Lordship my sincere thanks-Those persons did not apply to the society: because they had nothing to ask of them. They wanted no salary for their Minister: they were themselves able and willing to maintain him. They therefore applied, by me, to your Lordship, as members

VOL. II.

B b

* Erskine's Sketches, pages 133, & 228.