did trial, on his appearance before his lawful judges. Has not this prince done all that is in his power to do? Doth his promise to such a man authorize him to interfere with a foreign and independent jurisdiction, or to usurp the rights of another? Do not the very words of the council, "Because he has done all that is in his power to do," prove that lawful promises are to be ful filled?

"Such jurisconsults, whether Catholics or Protestants, such as Prenus, Speklam, and others, as I have accidentally read, concerning the nature of safe-conducts, lay down for a general rule, that they are never granted to suspend the execution of the laws. Salvus conductus contra jus non datur. It were nugatory in the emperor Sigismund, presumptive heir to a kingdom, which Huss's doctrine had changed into a theatre of intestine wars, to grant a safe-conduct, the meaning and sense whereof would be equivalent to the following pass: "Although you have set kingdoms in a blaze, by striking at the vitals of temporal authority, and overthrown the established religion of the land; yet go to Constance and come back, without appearing be fore your lawful judges, or retracting doctrines which have caused such disturbances in church and state." Safe-conducts, then, are not grant ed to screen delinquents from punishment, when legally convicted; much less, to countenance

disobedience to the laws, and disorder, by impunity.

"The council was the most competent judge of Huss's doctrine, in which he stedfastly persevered. Neither king nor emperor could deprive the bishops of privileges inseparably annexed to their characters, viz. spiritual jurisdiction, and the right of judging doctrines. Huss was degraded, and retrenched, according to the usual formalities, from a communion from which he had separated himself before. This is all the bishops could have done: this they acknowledge after the sentence of Huss's degradation was pronounced." This sacred synod of Constance, considering that the church of Christ has nothing further that it can do, decrees to leave John Huss to the judgment of the state." His execution was in consequence of the imperial laws, enforced by the civil magistrate, as the execution of heretics in England, and other Protestant states, has been in consequence of the imperial laws adopted by such powers. The Protestant clergy, as well as the clergy of Constance, decided upon points of doctrine, and went no farther.

"Thus we see, that this superannuated charge of violation of faith with heretics, resembles those nightly spectres which vanish upon a nearer approach. We find nothing in this council, relative to such a charge, but a dispute about

a pass granted to a man who goes to take his trial before judges whose jurisdiction conld not be superseded. Or if we intend to do justice to men with the same eagerness that we are disposed to injure them, we must acknowledge that the fathers of that council condemned lies, frauds, perjury, and those horrors which Mr. Wesley would fain fix upon the Roman Catholics. The foundations then, on which Mr. Wesley has erected his aërial fabric, being once sapped, the superstructure must fall of course; and his long train of false and unchristian assertions are swept away as a spider's web, before the wind of logical rules. follows an absurd conclusion.”

From absurd premises

But still it will be asked, that admitting the fact, that the Catholic religion does not teach persecution, nor hold the tenet that no faith is to be kept with heretics, yet is there not a stronger bias in the spirit and discipline of that Church to persecution, than is found in any other? Detach that Church from the State, and I reply, there is not. I have mixed and associated with Catholics, and I can assert, without dread of contradiction, that I have found as much liberality of sentiment, as enlarged and a sberal a freedom, and as great a spirit of toleration and Christian forbearance, as among other Christians holding the same general doctrines. It is true, they tell us, that future salvation is promised only to believers, by which, I am well aware,

they mean believers of their own description. But I should be glad to know how many denominations of Christians we can find that do not hold a similar opinion. Does not the Church of England tell us, that if we would be saved, we must believe the creed of St. Athanasius? Will any Calvinist, consistent with his principles, tell us that we may be saved whether we believe his doctrines or not? Nay, have not even the modest and liberal Quakers their line of distinction ?-their disownments and their censures, and that on account of heresy, real or imaginary? The truth of the whole matter is this, and thus we all reason: "Whosoever would be saved, it is necessary to be of the true Church: we are the true Church; therefore, whosoever would be saved must be of our Church." We may wrangle for ever about the exclusive spirit and the narrow bounds of popery; but, after all, it comes to this, even among most Protestants, that there is no salvation apart from us." The Temple of the Lord are WE." We all environ ourselves in a fortress of fundamentals, essentials, indispensable articles, and a thousand fancies of our own, and then call ourselves THE CHURCH! We become so many infallible bodies, and deal out our sentences of everlasting damnation with as much grace and ease as if we were distributing the bounties of a kind Providence. But it does not therefore follow, that any of us would persecute another to death, merely because we

think him in a dangerous error. The times of open persecution, I trust, are for ever past. Had Luther lived in our day, he would not have indulged narrow and selfish views: had Calvin now to deal with even Servetus, he would not resort to the argument of fire: had Socinus now to reason with Davidus, he would not thrust him into prison for not praying to a being whom he believed to be a mere man; and were the Catholics now restored to their former power, I feel confident they would not resort to the same violent measures which at one time so dreadfully disgraced them, and for which they now so severely suffer. The shameful disabilities under which Catholics and Dissenters still labour, will soon be removed the voice of truth, of justice and humanity must and will be heard. These disabilities are supported, not by the genius of Protestantism, for the principles of our separation from the Church of Rome are at variance with all those arguments which are urged by an interested faction for a continuance of that system of intolerance which is so pertinaciously pursued against the just claims of the Irish Catholics. It is not a system wholly of a religious character-the men who persist in opposing the claims of Catholics and Dissenters, I am persuaded, care little about the religion of either. The system is a political one; they know that those persons, Catholics and others, who now feel themselves injured and insulted, on account of their religious opinions, are the