To the Printer of the 'Public Advertiser' Date: CITY ROAD, January 12, 1780. SIR, - 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 endeavor 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 commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution in religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true; suppose the Council of Trent to have been 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 behavior 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 behavior. 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 of 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 treasons, 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 for 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 behavior. 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 Elizabeth Duchesne. See letter of Oct. 27, 1758.; 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 the 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.