Page images

... Pius the Fifth, and Sixtus Quintus, in publishing their bulls of deposition against queen Elizabeth, * and absolving her subjects from their allegiance could not perfuade the Catholics of England, to rise up in arms against their sovereign, though they were superior in numbers, and had room to expect every affiftance.

Two proofs which will ever stand upon record, that Catholics never hold difference in religion, as a sufficient plea for dethroning kings; nor a pope's bull a sufficient cause, for withdrawing their allegiance. ... :

In the dark ages, popes were deposed by the council of Constance; and John the twentysecond, wiro preached up the Millenarian doctrine, and held that souls do not enjoy the clear sight of God until after the resurrection, could not persuade the members of his church to believe him ; nor diffuade the university of Paris from censuring a doctrine, which the head of their church preached from the pulpit at Avignon, and which he himself retracted before a notary public, and several witnesses in his last fickness; nor dissuade a French king from writing this short letter to him, “Retracte, on je te

« ferai

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

* Such proceedings are accounted for in Loyalty Aferted, in the discussion of the deposing power.

[ocr errors]

“ ferai ardre,"-retract or I will get you burne ed. An evident proof that the pope cannot “ persuade the members of his church, to “ what he lifts ; nor enjoin it them on pain of “ eternal fire."

For the honour of Locke's memory, let my correspondent throw the fifty-ninth page of his treatise on toleration into the fire; for it is a jumble of nonsense. He argues from false principles taken up without examination,

All the popes bulls from the time of St. Peter, to the end of ages, cannot make an article of faith for Roman Catholics, without the acceptance of the Universal Church, and the church has no power over the temporals of kings, much less to command any thing against the laws of God.. .

Catholics never follow an arbitrary doctrine. The standard is fixed. The boundaries are prescribed, and the pope himself cannot remove them. They consider him as the head pastor of the church. Subordination in every society, requires pre-eminence in its rulers, But his will is not their creed.

As to Mr. Wesley. His reply to me is little more than a repetition of his first letter. He denies " that he himself, or his followers, were


« ever persecuted.” For the truth I appeal to his own conscience. I appeal to his “ Farther “ appeal” to men of reason and religion, wherein he describes the sufferings of several of his followers in England; how he himself was dragged by the mob; and the proceedings of a magistrate who dispersed a pamphlet, entitled, “ A parallel between the Papists and Me" thodists,?? in order to kindle the rage of the populace against him. I appeal to the letter he wrote, many years ago, to doctor Bailey of Cork, wherein he complains that the grand jury. of that city found indictments against Charles Wesley, who makes the hymns, and ordered him to be transported as a vagabond. Mr. Wef= ley has got the letter printed, with the names of the grand jury. But, after having weathered the storm, the mariner on shore forgets his diftresses as well as his fea-chart. ::.: : : . To shew that his friend, John Hufs, never

kindled any civil wars in Bohemia, and that “ he was quite innocent of any offence what“ever;" he quotes the following testimonial, given to John Huss, by the bishop of Nazareth.

We Nicholas, do, by these presents, make $c known unto all men, that we often talked $ with that honourable man, John Huss; and “ in all his sayings, doings, and beliaviour,

"hare “ have found him to be a faithful man; finding “no manner of evil, linister or erroneous do“ings in him, unto these presents:"). To this Mr. Wesley subjoins, a testimonial from the archbishop of Prague; declaring, “ that he “ knew not that John Huss was culpable or “faulty in any crime or offence whatsoever.".

"Let us now suppose those testimonials to be genuine, and grant them to Mr. Wefley to get rid of a bad cause. What advantage can he derive from them? The bishop of Nazareth declares, that he talked very often with John Huss, and that in their conversation, he difcovered nothing sinister or erroneous in him. Doubtless, in conversing with a bishop who was an Inquisitor, John Hufs was upon his guard. The archbishop “ knew not that he 66 was culpable." The conversation of the first. and the know not of the other, must counter· balance the positive and decisive proofs, produced on a criminal's trial, in presence of a general council, no ways interested in the con- . demnation of a man, in whom there “ was no “ evil, nothing sinifter or erroneous !". Testimonials are often granted to people from tenderness, or ignorance, which will avail but little on a trial. .

The thirtieth proposition, extracted from Huss's works, and condemned by the council,


fans thus : “ There is no temporal lord, there " is no pope, no bishop, when he is in the state “ of mortal sin.” Huss himself acknowledged this feditious proposition, which authorizes the fanatical faint to take the king's crown, if he fees him but once drunk: or to seize the property of the lord of the manor, if, in scolding his coachman, he curses. The fruits of this doctrine were as visible in Bohemia, as the fruits of Mr. Wesley's Apology for the associations, are legible in the glowing embers of London ! . .

. . . L'Enfant, the Calvinist historian of the council of Constånce, better informed than Mr: Wesley, can instruct him in these words : .“ John Hufs, by his fermons and writings, and « violent and outrageous conduct, had ex

5 tremely contributed to the troubles which .65 then distracted Bohemia."* .

What becomes now of testimonials which carry contradiction on the very face of them, whereas John Huss. was excommunicated a year and a half before he obtained them? Those bishops, then, must have been mistaken if their testimonials be genuine. Each of them must have been the Burnet of his days; of whom Protestant as well as Catholic historians

i remark, * L'Enfant, B. 3. No. 57.

« PreviousContinue »