an honest man; had he had either honour or conscience." I ask Mr. O'L. Would not you have done it, had you been in Sigismund's place? If you say, "No," a Protestant ought not to trust you, any more than he would trust a wild bull.

I am afraid, this is the case; for you strangely add, "It was nugatory in Sigismund, to grant him a safe-conduct. For neither king nor emperor could deprive the bishops of their right of judging," (add, and murdering heretics.) It is plain, Sigismund thought he could, that he could screen Huss from all dangers; else he had been both a fool and a knave to promise it; especially by a public instrument which pledged his own honour and that of the whole empire for his safety.

Now for flourish. "Thus the superannuated charge of violation of faith with heretics"-No more superannuated now than it was while John Huss was in the flames" vanishes way."--No, nor ever will. It still stares us in the face, and will do so, till another general council publicly and explicitly repeals that infamous determination of the Council of Constance, and declares the burning of John Huss to have been an open violation of all justice, mercy, and truth. But flourish on! "The foundation then of Mr. W.'s ærial fabric being sapped,"-not at all,-"the superstructure falls of course, and his long train of false and unchristian assertions.". What can this mean? I know of no long train of assertions, whether true or false ! I use three arguments and no more, in proof of one conclusion.

"What more absurd, than to insist on a general council's disclaiming a doctrine which they never taught?" They did teach it: and that not by the by, not incidentally; but they laid it down as a stated rule of action, dictated by the Holy Ghost. I quote chapter and verse. I say too, "See L'Abbe's Councils," printed at Paris, in 1672. Yea, and they were not ashamed to publish this determination to all the Christian world! And to demonstrate their sincerity therein, by burning a man alive. And this Mr. O'L. humorously

compares, to the roasting a piece of beef! With equal tenderness I suppose he would compare, the "making the beards of heretics," (that is, thrusting a burning furze-bush in their face) to the singing a fowl before it was roasted.

Then

"It is sufficient to disclaim it, when it is fixed upon us." disclaim it without delay; for it is fixed upon you, to all intents and purposes. Nay, and you fix it upon yourselves, in every new edition of the councils; in all of which this council stands in æternam rei memoriam, and this very determination, without the least touch of blame! It must therefore stand as an avowed doctrine of the Church of Rome, that "Heretics ought to be condemned and executed, notwithstanding the most solemn assurances to the contrary:" in other words, that, "The public faith, even that of kings and emperors, ought not to be kept with heretics."

What security then for my life can any terly renounces the Council of Constance?

man give me, till he utWhat 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 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.

A DISAVOWAL OF PERSECUTING PAPISTS.

I have read a tract lately sent me, and will now give my free thoughts upon the subject.

I set out early in life with an utter abhorrence of persecution in every form, and a full conviction that every man has a right to worship God according to his own conscience. Accordingly, more than fifty years ago, I preached on those words, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of: for the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And I preached on the same text, in London, the fifth of last Novemher. And this I extend to members of the Church of Rome, as well as to all other men.

I agree not only that many of these in former ages were good men, (as Thomas à Kempis, Francis Sales, and the Marquis de Renty,) but that many of them are so at this day. I believe I know some Roman Catholics, who sincerely love both God and their neighbour, and who steadily endeavour to do unto every one, as they wish him to do unto them.

But I cannot say, this is a general case: nay, I am fully convinced, it is not. The generality of Roman Catholics wherever I have been, are of the same principles, and the same spirit with their forefathers. And indeed, if they held the same principles, it could not be doubted, but they would be of the same practice too, if opportunity should

serve.

Those principles, openly avowed by their forefathers, of priestly absolution, Papal indulgences, and No faith to be kept with heretics, have never been openly and authoritatively disavowed, even unto this day. And until they are, a Roman Catholic, consistent with his principles, cannot be trusted by a Protestant.

For the same principles naturally tend to produce the same spirit, and the same practice. Very lately, a person seeing many flocking to a place, which she did not know was a Roman chapel, innocently said, What do all these people want? And was answered by one of them, with great vehemence, "We want your blood. And we will have it soon."

On Friday last I dined with a gentlewoman, whose father, living in Dublin, was very intimate with a Roman Catholic gentleman. Having invited him to dinner one day, in the course of conversation, Mrs. Gr asked him, "Sir, would you really cut my husband's throat, if your priest commanded you?" He answered honestly, Madam, Mr. Gr is my friend. And I love him well: but I must obey the church." Sir," said she, "I beg I may never more

see you within my doors."

66

But still, be their principles what they will, I would not persecute them. So persecution is utterly out of the question. I know no one that pleads for it. Therefore the writing or talking against it, is time lost it is proving what no one denies.

And the Romanists never have been persecuted in England since I remember. They have enjoyed a full toleration. I wish them to enjoy the same toleration still; neither more nor less.

I would not hurt a hair of their head. Meantime I would not put it into their power to hurt me, or any other persons whom they believe to be heretics. I steer the middle way. I would neither kill, nor be killed. I would not use the sword against them; nor put it into their hands, lest they should use it against me: I wish them well: but I dare not trust them.

But still I say, persecution is out of the question. And I look on all vague declamations upon it, which have been lately poured out, as either mere flourishes of persons who think they talk prettily, or artful endeavours to puzzle the cause, and to throw dust into the eyes of honest Englishmen.

Bristol, March 18, 1782.

THE

ORIGIN OF IMAGE-WORSHIP AMONG CHRISTIANS.

WHEN Christianity was first preached in the world, it was supported by such miraculous assistance of the divine power, that there was need of little or no human aid to the propagation of it. Not only the Apostles, who first preached it, but even the lay-believers were sufficiently instructed in all the articles of faith, and were inspired

with the power of working miracles, and the gift of speaking in languages unknown to them before.

But when the gospel was spread, and had taken root through the world; when kings and princes became Christians, and when temples were built and magnificently adorned for Christian worship; then the zeal of some well-disposed Christians brought pictures into the churches, not only as ornaments, but as instructers of the ignorant ; ¦ and from thence they were called libri laicorum, the books of the people. Thus the walls of the churches were beset with pictures, representing all the particular transactions mentioned. And they, who did not understand a letter of a book, knew how to give a very good account of the gospel, being taught to understand the particular passages of it in the pictures of the church. Thus, as hieroglyphics were the first means of propagating knowledge, before writing by letters and words was invented; so the more ignorant people were taught compendiously by pictures, what, by the scarcity of teachers, they had not an opportunity of being otherwise fully instructed in.

But these things, which were at first intended for good, became, by the Devil's subtlety, a snare for the souls of Christians. For when Christian princes, and the rich and great, vied with one another who should embellish the temples with greatest magnificence, the pictures upon the walls were turned into gaudy images upon the altars; and the people being deceived by the outward appearance of the priest's bowing and kneeling (before those images) as the different parts of their devotion led them, they imagined that those gestures were designed to do honour to the images, before which they were performed, (which they certainly were not;) and so from admiring, the people came to adore them. Thus, what were at first designed as monuments of edification, became the instruments of superstition. This being a fatal oversight in the clergy, at first, neglected, or winked at, by degrees, (as all errors have crept into the church,) gathered strength; so that, from being in the beginning, the dotage of the ignorant vulgar, the poison infected those of better rank, and by their influence and countenance, brought some of the priests over to their opinion, or rather those priests were the occasion of deceiving the rich and powerful, especially the female sex, for ends not very reputable or agreeable to the integrity of their profession. But so it was, that what the priests at first winked at, they afterwards gave countenance to; and what they once countenanced, they thought themselves obliged in honour to defend; till at last, superstition came to be preached from the pulpits, and gross idolatry obtruded upon the people for true devotion.

It is true, there were many of the sacred order, whose sound hearts and clear heads, were very averse to this innovation; who both preached and wrote against the worship of images, showing both the wickedness and folly of it. But the disease was so far spread, and the poison had taken such root, that the consequence of opposition was the dividing the church into parties and schisms, and at last proceeded to blood and slaughter...

N. B. Is it not marvellous that what was so simple in the beginning, should degenerate into such idolatry as is scarcely to be found in the Heathen world! While this, and several other errors, equally contrary to Scripture and reason, are found in the church, together with the abominable lives of multitudes who call themselves Christians; the very name of Christianity must stink in the nostrils of the Mahometans, Jews, and Infidels.

REASONS AGAINST A SEPARATION

FROM

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

WHETHER it be lawful or not, (which itself may be disputed, being not so clear a point as some may imagine,) it is by no means expedient for us to separate from the established Church :

1. Because it would be a contradiction to the solemn and repeated declarations which we have made in all manner of ways, in preaching, in print, and in private conversation:

2. Because, (on this as well as on many other accounts,) it would give huge occasion of offence to those who seek and desire occasion, to all the enemies of God and his truth:

3. Because it would exceedingly prejudice against us many who fear, yea, who love God, and thereby hinder their receiving so much, perhaps any further, benefit from our preaching:

4. Because it would hinder multitudes of those who neither love nor fear God, from hearing us at all:

5. Because it would occasion many hundreds, if not some thousands of those who are now united with us, to separate from us; yea, and some of those who have a deep work of grace in their souls:

6. Because it would be throwing balls of wild-fire among them that are now quiet in the land. We are now sweetly united together in love. We mostly think and speak the same thing. But this would occasion inconceivable strife and contention, between those who left, and those who remained in the Church, as well as between those who left us, and those who remained with us: nay, and between those very persons who remained, as they were variously inclined one way or the other:

7. Because, whereas controversy is now asleep, and we in a great measure live peaceably with all men, so that we are strangely at leisure to spend our whole time and strength in enforcing plain, practical, vital religion, (O what would many of our forefathers have given, to have enjoyed so blessed a calm!) This would utterly banish peace