To the Editors of the 'Freeman's Journal' Date: MANCHESTER, March 23, 1780. GENTLEMEN, 1. Mr. O'Leary does well to entitle his paper Remarks, as that word may mean anything or nothing; but it is no more an answer to my letter than to the Bull Uni-genitus. He likewise does wisely in prefacing his Remarks with so handsome a compliment. This may naturally incline you to think well of his judgment, which is no small point gained. 2. His manner of writing is easy and pleasant; but might it not as well be more serious The subject we are treating of is not a light one: it moves me to tears rather than to laughter. I plead for the safety of my country-yea, for the children that are yet unborn. ' But cannot your country be safe unless the Roman Catholics are persecuted for their religion' Hold! Religion is out of the question. But I would not have them persecuted at all; I would only have them hindered from doing hurt. I would not put it in their power (and I do not wish that others should) to cut the throats of their quiet neighbours. 'But they will give security for their peaceable behavior.' They cannot while they continue Roman Catholics; they cannot while they are members of that Church which receives the decrees of the Council of Constance, which maintains the spiritual power of the Bishop of Rome or the doctrine of priestly absolution. 3. This I observed in my late letter. Whoever, therefore, would remark upon it to any purpose must prove these three things: (1) that the decree of the Council of Constance, publicly made, has been publicly disclaimed; (2) that the Pope has not power to pardon sins, or to dispense with oaths, vows, and promises; and (3) that no priest has power to pardon sins. But has Mr. O'Leary proved these three points Has he proved any one of them He has, indeed, said something upon the first. He denies such a decree was ever made.

4. I am persuaded Mr. O'Leary is the first man that ever made the important discovery. But, before he is quite sure, let him look again into Father L'Abbe's Concilia Maxima, printed at Paris in the year 1672. The last volume contains a particular account of the Council of Constance; one of whose decrees is, ' That heretics ought to be put to death, non obstantibus salvis conductibus Imperatoris, Regum, c., notwithstanding the public faith engaged to them in the most solemn manner.' Who, then, can affirm that no such doctrine or violation of faith with heretics is authorized by this Council Without putting on spectacles (which, blessed be God, I do not wear) I can read a little Latin still. And while I can I must fix this horrid doctrine on the Council of Constance. 5. But, supposing the Council of Constance had never advanced this doctrine or the Church of Rome had publicly disclaimed it, my conclusion stands good till it is proved (1) that no priest has a power of pardoning sins; and (2) that the Pope has neither a power of pardoning sins, nor of dispensing with oaths, vows, promises, c. Mr. O'Leary has proved neither of these. And what has he proved It is hard to say. But if he proves nothing, he either directly or indirectly asserts many things. In particular, he asserts: (1) 'Mr. Wesley has arraigned in the jargon of the Schools.' Heigh-day! What has this to do here There is no more of the jargon of the Schools in my letter than there is of Arabic. 'The Catholics all over the world are liars, perjurers, c.' Nay, I have not arraigned one of them. This is a capital mistake. I arraign the doctrines, not the men. Either defend them or renounce them. 'I do renounce them,' says Mr. O'Leary. Perhaps you do. But the Church of Rome has never renounced them. 'He asperses our communion in a cruel manner.' I do not asperse it at all in saying these are the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Who can prove the contrary (2) 'Mr. O'Leary did not even attempt to seduce the English soldiery.' I believe it; but does this prove any of these three points ' But Queen Elizabeth and King James roasted heretics in Smithfield ' I In what year I doubt the fact.

(3) 'Mr. Wesley is become an apologist of those who burned the chapel in Edinburgh.' Is not this said purely ad movendam invidiam ' to inflame the minds of the people' For it has no shadow of truth. I never yet wrote nor spoke one word in their defence. 'He urged the rabble to light that fire.' No more than he urged them to dethrone the King. (4) 'Does Mr. Wesley intend to sound Alecto's Alecto was one of the Furies, whose head was covered with snakes. horn or the war-shell of the Mexicans' All this is cruel aspersion indeed, designed merely to inflame! What I intend is neither more nor less than this to contribute my mite to preserve our constitution both in Church and State. (5) 'They were the Scotch and English regicides who gave rise to the Irish massacre.' 'The Irish massacre'! Was there ever any such thing Was not the whole account a mere Protestant lie Oh no! it was a melancholy truth, wrote in the blood of many thousands. But the regicides no more gave rise to that massacre than the Hottentots. The whole matter was planned several years, and executed before the King's death was thought of. 'But Mr. Wesley is sowing the seeds of another massacre'! Such another as the massacre of Paris 6. 'Was he the trumpeter of persecution when he was persecuted himself' Just as much as now. Cruel aspersions still! designed and calculated only to inflamed he then abet persecution on the score of conscience No, nor now Conscience is out of the question. 'His letter contains all the horrors invented by blind 'misguided zeal, set forth in the most bitter language.' Is this gentleman in his senses I hope not. Else I know not what excuse to make for him. Not one bitter word is in my letter. I have learned to put away all bitterness, with all malice, But still this is wide of the mark; which of these three points does it prove

7. 'In his second letter he promises to put out the fire which he has already kindled in England.' ' Second letter' What is that I know nothing of it. 'The fire which he has kindled in England'! When Where I have kindled no fire in England any more than in Jamaica. I have done and will do all that is in my power to put out that which others have kindled. 8. 'He strikes out a creed of his own for Roman Catholics. This fictitious creed he forces upon them.' My words are these: ' Suppose every word of Pope Pius's Creed to be true.' I say not a word more of the matter. Now, I appeal to every reasonable man, Is this striking out a creed of my own for Roman Catholics Is this forcing a fictitious creed on them, ' like the Frenchman and the blunderer in the Comedy' What have I to do with one or the other Is not this dull jest quite out of season And is the creed composed by the Council of Trent and the Bull of Pope Pius IV a fictitious one Before Mr. O'Leary asserts this again, let him look into the Concilia Maxima once more, and read there, Bulla Pii Quarti super forma juramenti professionis fidei The Bull of Pius IV concerning the form of the oath on the profession of Faith. This forma professionis fidei I call Pope Pius's Creed, If his 'stomach revolts from it,' who can help it 9. Whether the account given by Philip Melanchthon of the words spoken (not in Hebrew, but in Latin) be true or false, it does not at all affect the account of Miss Duchesne, which I gave in her own words See letter of Jan. 12.. And I cannot but observe that, after all the witticisms which he has bestowed upon it, Mr. O'Leary does not deny that the priest might have burnt her, 'had it been for the good of the Church.'

10. 'Remark a missionary inflaming the rabble and propagating black slander.' Remark a San Benito cap, painted with devils; but let him put it on whom it fits. It does not fit me: I inflame no rabble; I propagate no slander at all. But Mr. O'Leary does. He propagates an heap of slander in these his Remarks. I say too, 'Let the appeal be made to the public and their impartial reason.' I have nothing to do with the 'jargon or rubbish of the Schools,' lugged in like 'the jargon of the Schools' before. But I would be glad if Mr. O'Leary would tell us what these two pretty phrases mean. The whole matter is this. I have without the least bitterness advanced three reasons why I conceive it is not safe to tolerate the Roman Catholics. But still, I would not have them persecuted; I wish them to enjoy the same liberty, civil and religious, which they enjoyed in England before the late Act was repealed. Meantime I would not have a sword put into their hands; I would not give them liberty to hurt others. Mr. O'Leary, with much archness and pleasantry, has nibbled at one of these three reasons, leaving the other two untouched. If he chooses to attack them in his next, I will endeavor to give him a calm and serious answer. I am, gentlemen, Your obedient servant.