^, 
 
 .^J^ 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 /. 
 
 
 LO 
 
 U 
 1.25 
 
 [If |ji4 
 
 Its 
 
 12.2 
 
 IM 
 
 ■ 2.0 
 
 L8 
 
 i 
 
 1^ m m 
 
 o^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 '/] 
 
 ^;. 
 
 ^> .^"^1 
 
 '>>' 
 
 w 
 ^ 
 
 '/ 
 
 Hiotographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. USSO 
 
 (716)a72-4S03 
 
^ *^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ,^\^"^ 
 
 v.^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^7 
 
 v> 
 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical l\/licroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographicaliy unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommag^e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurte et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 D 
 
 Le titre de couvertur? manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes giographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 11 se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes 
 lore d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t^ filmtos. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaires: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiileur exemplaire 
 qu'ii lui a Att possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mithode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqute ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagtes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurtes et/ou peilicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( 
 Pages d^coiorAes, tachettes ou piqutes 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tachtes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materit 
 Comprend du materiel suppi^mentaire 
 
 I — I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 [~y| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 r~7 Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Mitlon disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partieilement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelurs, 
 etc., ont AtA filmtes A nouveau de fagon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est f llmA au taux de rMuction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 
 
 
 16X 
 
 
 
 
 20X 
 
 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire filmA f ut reproduit grAce h la 
 gAnArosltA de: 
 
 BIbllothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Las images suivantes ont AtA reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at 
 de la nettetA de l'exemplaire filmi. et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les exemplaires orlginaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est ImprimAe sont filmte en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 orlginaux sont filmte en commen^ant par la 
 premlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniire page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE". le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre 
 filmte A des taux de reduction diffArents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul ciichA, 11 est filmA d partir 
 de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
■I 
 
 
 . y> 
 
 J 4 
 
 h 
 
 1. 
 
 ■i. 
 
 h E T T 1^ II b 
 
 OF 
 
 # i 
 
 DANIEL O'CONiNELL, ESQUIRE, 
 
 •f .1 
 
 
 TO TJIK 
 
 iVI I i\ 1 S T E R S 
 
 AND 
 
 O F F I C E - B E A R E 11 S 
 
 OF THE 
 
 WESLEYAI^J METHODIST SOCIEtlES 
 
 IN 
 
 MANCHESTER. 
 
 iviNGSTON, CANADA : 
 
 I'UDLISIIED AND SOLD BV M. J. MACDONELI-j BOORSi!-i.i-«-»<. 
 
 I ' 
 
 1^42, 
 
 
PmtED AT THE BRITISH WHIG OFFtCE, KWCStON, 
 
 n^ 
 
 
 W^ 
 
 s 
 

 ^ « ' 
 
 TO THE 
 
 MINISTERS 
 
 AND 
 
 OFFICE-BEARERS 
 
 OP THE 
 
 WJISLEYAN METHODJST SOCIETIES IN MANCHESTER. 
 
 tETTER I. 
 
 London, July G, 1639. 
 « Wo hold the faith our fathers held to God.»» 
 Rev, Sirs and Gentlemen: 
 
 There appeared in. the Morning Chronicle of the 2d of Juno 
 an advertisement, headed " National Education," containing a 
 manifesto on that important subject, addressed by you to your 
 representatives in Parliament. 
 
 I do not at all dispute your right to address your representa- 
 tives on matter of such great interest ; but whilst I admit that 
 right, I feel bound to dispute the propriety of the manner in 
 which you so remonstrated. It seems to me that the contents 
 of your remonstrances do not exhibit any great stock of Christian 
 knowledge, and that they are still more deficient in Christian 
 charity. 
 
 To avoid all possibility of misstating your sentiments, I will 
 give them in your very words. They are these: — • 
 
 " We most decidedly object to the intended scheme on the 
 strong grounds of conscience, and of our right to full religious 
 liberty. 
 
 " We protest against being taxed for the teaching and main- 
 tenance of systems of religion which we, in common with the vast 
 majority of our fellow-countrymen, believe to be false and m- 
 juiious. 
 
 ^ 
 
" Wo protest niorc('si»ff'i:iIly n,0"aliist oiir Ix-Ini; oo?ii|)olif(l to 
 Mif)))ort schools in uliicli it is |)ro|K)s<'(l to wsc. t'rrsiims of the 
 Ilolij Scriptures notnrioifslij currupt and iinfdillifiil. ami .■u'com- 
 j)ani(.'(l by notes which wc consider contain the must ahsurd and 
 j)criiicious dootiinf's. 
 
 "Wo think it would ho an infrinironient on our riiriits, as a 
 larixo and inlluential religious coinniunity, that after havin«: paid 
 a considerable portion of the money expendet^ in national edu- 
 cation, it would bo imjjossible that the children ol' Wesleyan 
 Methodists should avail themselves of its advantages without 
 being subjected to the danger^ arising from the exhibition of 
 rival sects (contending for rival versions of the Bible, and from 
 the spirit of doubt, if not of absolute iiifnkJity, in which that ex- 
 liibitiou would be so likely to result." 
 
 I have several objections to this manifesto of yours. The 
 first is, your claim to be considered friendly to the principle of 
 full religious liberty. 
 
 It is an excellent princij)le: bi,t, I repeat, you have no claim 
 or right to bo considered friendly to it. On the contrary, its- 
 assertion in your mouths sounds so exceedingly like hypocrisy, 
 (hat I would respectfully caution you not to use it any more. 
 And for this simple reason — that the Wesleyan Methodists, in 
 the person of their founder, and from his days, have ujjon all 
 occasions shown themselves the enemies of freedom of con- 
 science. 
 
 I speak of the great body of the Wesleyan Methodists. There 
 have, of course, been individual exceptions, and some highly 
 honorable ones; but my accusation is directed against the great 
 and overwhelming majoritj of the Wesleyan Methodists. 
 
 Look to the history of your sect, society, or persuasion, or 
 W'hatcvcr name you may choose to call it, and you will find that 
 such history justifies and proves the truth of my accusation. 
 In the first jdace, thj IVotestant dissenters of England, for 
 nearly half a century after the organization of your societ}', 
 were opj)ressed by penal and restrictive laws for consciences 
 sake. And whilst iheij were seeking for the repeal of the Test 
 and Corporation Acts, you, the Wesleyan Methodists, never 
 assisted them in that hcly struggle. At least, if you did, tlu; 
 lact never readied me. On the contrary, you at I jt;st appeared^ 
 
 i! 
 
 ! 
 
'.. 
 
 il" yoii were not realfi/, anionirst flin anient sii|i|)< •iters <>i' tljo 
 oncniics r>i"tli(! I'lnirlish I'rotcstant diss 'nlcrs. 
 
 I KNOW tli.it ill tliu y«'ar is-JN, wiicn the Catliollrs olMrcland 
 lUianinioiisly and |)o\v«'rriilly ptititioncMl I'oi- pti I'l'ct I'lvrduni ol 
 <'onsci('nc(; I'ur tli<; JjiLrlish Protestant dissenters, i/ou did not, 
 as //•('did, niinL;lij in the iiijlil, or hcconic (;nti!led tosliarc in llio 
 ijlory (A' tlii; \i -tory. 
 
 Secondly, in the ionu: stri!'i!.de the Catholics of Ireland made 
 lor the aholition of" liic laws thai intrijiLM.'d trcedom ot' con- 
 s('ien(:e, i/oi/ never ijave ns any assistance. On the contraiy, 
 you were loiKid in ih-j advcr.so ranks, active, perscNXTin^', viru- 
 lent ! 
 
 lIo\v can you. then, think of elainiiiiii' to ytairselves the 
 Christian epiihet '• Friends of freedom of consei<;ne(^ (" 
 
 In the third plaec, you would have de|)arled \vid(dy, indeed, 
 Ironi the |)nnci|iles oi' the remarkable man \vho lorruej yuiu* 
 suei(!ty, il yon wer-' noUK-tivt? enemies ol" Ireedom oreonsciiruee, 
 as your founder, ihe Rev. .John Weslev, exhibited iUr. most 
 anient, but melancholy /eal in the cause' of intoleraiu.'e. IIo 
 was, inllTl), one ol' tht; principal fv)unders or manaijers of that 
 "Protestant Association," which in Jinie, 17.SI), very nearly 
 achieved the destruction of London, bv om- of those' insurrec- 
 tions whicli are in the present day calhxl vmcitU's. The Pro- 
 testant mob had, it is weJ! i<nown, jxissession of tht; city of 
 London for nearlv six davs — ' stroveii not onlv the liouses ol' 
 the Catholics and tlu-ir proj)erly, but the Cathoiie cliapids, and 
 also much I'rotestant propei'ty, as well as the juisons of the 
 metropolis. Tiie great instigator of ihal Protestant Association, 
 l)oth in the |)ulj)it and tlirouidi tlio jiress, was that Wt.'sley 
 \vhose name you bear; and the !ir^^i page of your politi(-al iiis- 
 tory is stained with the blunderings, the burnings, the destruc- 
 tion of pro})erty, the bloodshed, and the fearful iiisurroction of 
 June, 17H0. 
 
 In the fourth place, you are unable (and perha|)s you are un- 
 willing) to siu'ink Ironi the avowal of the guilt <d" John Wesley 
 in these' transactions. Tlu; insurr(;ction cominenci d on Xlw. 'M 
 June, 17(S(>, th(! (hiy that the Protestae.t Association ])resente(l 
 their petition to P.irlianient. On the Hth of February in that 
 year, that very A^'.-ociation prc::jntcJ.lIioir unanimous thanks 
 
6 
 
 in John Wcsluy for liis ox(M-tioiis in ihoir cause. But what f 
 tliiiik is the worst foatiin; in the cutiro of iii<4 conchict is, his 
 haviii;,' afterwards, :iii(l iiftcr tlio insurrection was )»nt down, the 
 audacity (wiiich, I Iio[k>, will iKsvcr havi; a juiralkd) a(;tually to 
 j)ul)iish and ar;L,Mio liiat this insnrro(;tion for destruction of 
 Catholic ju'ojKMty, Caliiolic i»ia<:es of worship, and CatlioHc 
 lives, was notliini,' loss than a Poiusii rL(»T ! ! ! 
 
 Thus, Wosleyan MctiiO(hsts, do I dispose of yourchiim to ha 
 deemed friends of freedom of conscience. My advi(;e to you 
 is, to ahandon the wretched })reteuce in future. Avow your- 
 selves friends of intolerance, and, if you dare, of persecution; 
 but do not outrage common sense and Christian sentiment, by 
 alFecting to bo favorable to religious liberty. 
 
 Such if my first objection to your manifesto; the suggestion 
 of your being wliat you arc not. 
 
 Yet I am (piite ready to ap[)laud the princi])Io you put forward 
 in that manifesto. Where it is applicable to ijou, I am (juitc 
 content you should have the benefit of it. You protest against 
 the tax for the teaching and maintenance of svstems of reliijion 
 which you believe to he ialsc and injurious. Oh, how heartly 
 do I thank you, good Wcsloyan Methodists, for the princi[)le. 
 What a blow it gives to the payment of church-rates by Protes- 
 tant dissenters, or Roman Catholics in England ! What a heavy 
 blow you gave to the Protestant establishment in Ireland ! How 
 heartily do I thank you for the excell«nt principle you thus put 
 forward ! 
 
 But come, be honest! Work out your own principle. No 
 man should be taxed for the teaching and maintenance of a reli- 
 gion he deems false and injurious. Let the Presbyterian, Epis- 
 copalian, Independent, Baptist and Catholic, have the benefit of 
 it. It api)lies to all. Will you work it out for all 1 
 
 But no ! you will claim it for yourselves — ^you will not grant 
 it to others. " What you would that other men should do unto 
 you, that you will not do unto them." 
 
 To justify yom* conduct in a moral point of view, all that is 
 necessary is directly to contradict the plain })recept of holy 
 writ. 
 
 We will now proceed to your biblical knowledge. The words 
 you use are these : — 
 
 > 
 
 I 
 
 ■I 
 
 .,i 
 

 i 
 
 '• Wo protest most cspocially aojalns^ our br-ing rompclUd to 
 KUjipnrt schools ill wliicli it is proposed t»> use versions ol tlio 
 Holy Scriptures noldrioiisly corrupt und iinriiillirul, and a(X'om- 
 paiiicd liy notes which, \vc cuiisider, contain most al)sunl aiid 
 pernicious (ioctrines." 
 
 I will b(;,<j^in with tlio notes*. And my conviction is, that not 
 one anionij^st you ever rend tho notes of the Calln)iic version of 
 tlic Holy Scriptures in mod(M-n use. It is quite true that there 
 was an c(Ution oi" the lliiemish or Douay Bible, that contained 
 notes in which the (.'ivil power was souglit to be justified in in- 
 llicting persecution for religious dissent. But there arc, indeed, 
 Very lew copies in existence containing sucli notes; and all the 
 copies m ns(» by tUe clergy, or in use in Catholic schools', colleges 
 or private houses, mu- «julu; lice troin any such notes. The 
 multitudinous copies published in England and IrchniU in recent 
 times, arc (luite free from them. Indeed, even if they existed, 
 the complaint against them would come with a very bad grace 
 from the Wesleyan Methodists, who, as far as the more liberal 
 spirit of the present pcriodwill allow, countenance the principle 
 of religious persecution. But the Catholics, one and all, have 
 repudiated these notes and the doctrines they contain. No 
 man ever repudiated and condemned them more loudly than I 
 did, and do. The complaint, therefore, that you make against 
 notes that no longer, for any practical purpose, exist, appears to 
 me to be idle and frivolous, and quite unworthy of being intro- 
 duced into any discussion upon so important a subject as national 
 education. 
 
 The next allegation of your's, to which I object, is, that the 
 Catholic version of the Holy Scriptures is notoriously corrupt 
 and unfaithful. In this you dis])Iay nothing but a lamentable 
 ignorance. You have made a charge which you can never 
 prove, and which you would be ashamed to make if you had 
 biblical learning adequate to the importance of the subject. 
 You would then have known that such a charge applies, not td 
 the Catholic, but to the Protestant version ; and that whilst many 
 l*rotcstant divines have borne their testimony in favor of the 
 Catholic version, many learned Prot(3stant, as well as all Catho- 
 lic divines, have demonstrated the errors in the Protestant au- 
 thorized version; to this extent, that some of those errors, ujkhi 
 most important points of religious belief, are admitted by learned 
 
f. 
 
 rrolostanls to be mmiift^st, niul vet roni.iiii \o this ilnv unror- 
 rcctcd. J«('l me put y<»ii in jtosscssion nl' ;i few i'ucfs. Jt may 
 bcolrisf! to voii to kiinw tlidii. 
 
 First — Tliat t!i<, first i^'rcal iiso tnadr nl" tiic press, alter liie 
 iiiveiitioii of tlie art ofpriiitiii;,', was the |iiil)lieati<»ii, liy the cehv 
 f)ratL'(l Faust, ••!" the Ijihie aeconliiiL,' to th(! \'iilLMte. The 
 edition uas vei'y hiriie. It was, iiowcvcV, in liatiii; htit you 
 should know that at that period almost (,'vory jhtsou who could 
 n;ad understood Latin. 'This puhlieation took plaeo mi>ro than 
 70 voars before the so-ealle(l " llelbrmation.*' 
 
 Second — That about h(H) editions of the IJibli! or New Testa- 
 ment wen; printed and circulal/d in ("athojic, lluropc befor«i the 
 so-called llefornialion, juid beiore the naiii'j ttf I'rotcritant was 
 known ia the w<»rld. 
 
 Third A iimiilxi-, exci-rdiuii,- xJOO, of these editions, wcro in 
 the vernacular toiiijucs of the diill'icnt eonnlries in wiiich they 
 were published; and were tims accessihl-.' to c\ery bodv who 
 could read. 
 
 Fourth — These editions of the IJible iii the vernacular tongues 
 were almost (exclusively j)ublished in the ('ountries tli.'it after- 
 wards continued faithful to Catholicily; wiiilst in J'in*,dand, 
 Scotlanfl Sweden, Denmark and TVorway, where Protestantism 
 accjuired an early, and his maintained a more lastiuL', ascen ; 
 dancy, no Bible existed, in the national tongue, until after they 
 had embraced the new creed. 
 
 Fifth — That the oidy exception in favor of a country havin;^- 
 adopted the new creed, or rather cre(!ds, in Holland; in which 
 then; were two or three vernacular versions o*" scripture before 
 the Reiormation; but it must be admitted that the political 
 position of Holland influenced, if il did not crente, the adhesion 
 of the .Dutch to JVotcstnnlisiu. And then; is this compensation, 
 that in no country in Fjurope aje the inhabitants returningmoro 
 (juickly or more numerously to the Catholic faith than arc the 
 Dutch. But of thi! countries we have above mentioned as b(!ing 
 peculiarly j)rotestant, it is rt>mir.-kal)lie that Protestantism was 
 introducetl into England bv Honrv VIII., and into Denmark by 
 Christicrn II., two'of tlu; greatest monsters that ever disgraced; 
 jiot only* the thron(% but human natun; ! 
 
 Sixth — That the first versions of tlie Bible in the English 
 language published after the conmieneemcntof the Refornmtion 
 
 1 \ 
 
!i 
 
 r { 
 
 i 
 
 
 Tvoro — Isllv, Tvii(l;irs; \i(llv. (N)vt;r.l;ilo's; — I'olli in the rcii^n 
 ofll.M.ry VIII.';— ;Mly, ll.ai call.-.l -''riic nisli..|.'s Hil.lo," in 
 till,' nrii,'!! »>l" (^uccii J''Ji/;iltctli; anil llit^si; tln'cf possessed llu? 
 ex('iiisiv(; (;ir('iilati<>n ol" JiiiL'laiiil till llu; year 1011, when the 
 jnH'st.'iit '•uutlii»ri/uir' version was jiiildislud in the mp;n of 
 Jamos I. TIk; tlirco iornxT versions liavin>r pnivailcd lor a 
 period of nearly sixty years as tlu^ anth<jrized versions of the 
 Siiered S<:riptures for the English rrolestiintw. . . ' 
 
 ■ ' Seventh: — That th(;s(; versions were so full of .irros:^ ornii*!? that 
 ihey were declared hy more than one thousand nHni«ter:^ of tho 
 Knujlish Protestant (.'hureh to ho "in some jilaees ahsurd; and 
 in othei*^, as takini; from, ])(;rvi;rtin^', ol)s(HU*iii.'r, and falsifying 
 the word of God;"' and as heiii-,' what James himseli' called ".a 
 niost corrupt translation/' Yet it was from such versicjiis that 
 the hihlical christians of Jwi^land hud, for a period r»f nearly sixty 
 years, to select their religion. 
 
 Ki<,dith — That the present anllioii/cd version, that of King 
 James, had not escaped Pnjteslant censure of the most emphatic 
 nature. Protestant divines of tt-u; highest character; I name 
 Louth, Neweonjc, Wakefield, JJellaniy (and I could name 
 others) admit that the errors i'l. the Protestant authorized iwrsion 
 are frequent, and that a reehion is dcsiruhlc. And a more 
 recent and lahorious J'rotestant writer, the lie v. Mr. Home, in 
 his " Introduction to theCriti' al Study of the Scriptures,*' vol. 
 ii., fully concurs in the ojiinions of the more ancient Protestant 
 divines. 
 
 Yet it is from this version, in which, in the mitiu^ated langna,^o 
 of Protestant divines, ''///c ciTors arc frequent,'^ and of which a 
 revision was (lei^lared to he very desirabU;, that you, Weslcyan 
 Methodists, and the rest of the Protestants of England, collect 
 your religion. 
 
 Ninth — The persons who revised, and under whose sanction 
 the present Protestant Vvi'sion \vas produced, were men ^hoso 
 character and strength of mind may he judged of by their having 
 dedicated their new version of the liihie to James I., that slob- 
 bering and disgusting creature, who has been so justly described 
 ns the shame alike cd' royalty and of manhood! — and in their 
 dedication having called him ''the Sun in his strength;"— - 
 " whom the heaveidy hand of the Lord hath enriched witii manv 
 
 b 
 
 I 
 
 { 
 
 i 
 
 ) I 
 
 ifcjfe. 
 
10 
 
 singular and extraordinary graces, that lio may be the woxdeh 
 OF THE world" ! ! ! 
 
 Tenth — The Catliolic authorized version was first published 
 at Douay in the year 1G09. It was the result of forty years 
 toil and labor, and can fairly stand a comparison with any other 
 version of the sacred Scriptures, published m any country, either 
 Catholic or Protestant. 
 
 Eleventh — I close my statement of these interesting notices, 
 with reminding you that the Catholic needs not, and does not 
 rely upon any particular Catholic version of the sacred Scrip- 
 tures. It has an ever-living and a speaking authority to resort 
 to. It is the duty and it is the happiness of the Catholic that ho 
 should 
 
 " Her alone for his director take 
 
 Whom God has promised never to forsake." 
 
 Having thus thrown before you facts, the vertification of 
 which is familiar to any instructed biblical scholar, I proceed to 
 consider as rapidly as so important a subject will permit, 
 another topic of great importance in itself, but which, I think, 
 you have been exceedingly incautious ia bringing forward. It 
 is a topic which, in my humble judgment, you should have cau- 
 tiously abstained from. It can do you nothing but mischief. 
 It appears to me to be a disavowal of the very first principle of 
 Protestantism. It is that in which you complain of the dangers 
 to which your children " would be exposed, by the exhibition 
 of rival sects contending for rival versions of the Bible" — and by 
 the spirit of doubt, if not of absolute infidelity, in which that 
 exhibition would be so likely to result. 
 
 And is it so, Weslcyan Metliodists ? Is there, then, danger 
 of doubt ? is there, then, danger of absolute infidelity from 
 the exhibition of rival versions of the Bible 1 And are you thus 
 determined to I'car up and educate your children in the ignor- 
 ance of that most important fact? And will you conceal from 
 those children, too, who they were from whom that spirit of 
 doubt emanated, and with whom the danger of that absolute in- 
 fidelity originated, and by whom it was continued'? Meditate 
 well upon your own words; and bethink you if they are not 
 destined to ri^i in judgment against you. and to produce your 
 condemnation out of vour own mouths ? 
 
 ! 
 
11 
 
 f 
 
 .] i 
 
 For, speaking of Protestantism as a fact, and, for tlic present, 
 pot condemning, and (of course) not approving of it — is it not 
 this, the right of private judgment, and the right, as well as 
 the duty of each individual to examine and decide for him- 
 self, by selecting from the written word of God, and from 
 that alone, the tenets of his religion'? 
 
 This is the principle of your religion, else }'ou arc not 
 Protestant: "'The sole sufficiency, and the a//-sufficiency, of 
 tlie written word of God, with the right of each individual 
 to expound its meaning for himself." 
 
 Now, come with me, I pray you, for one moment, and 
 tell me whether this principle does not necessarily and in- 
 evitably imply a perfect knowledge of what is and what is 
 not "i/ie written word of God?''' 
 
 There is an accurate, though parliamentary language, a 
 previous question, or rather questions, before you can use 
 any book as containiug the word of God. 
 
 First — Is it certain that the book does contain the word of 
 God? 
 
 Secondly — Is it certain that it contains the entire word of 
 God? 
 
 These two questions should be fully and satisfactorily answer- 
 ed before any Protestant can safely use his Bible. In fact, 
 it is plainly the duty of every member of the Protestant churches 
 to satisfy himself individually of the ground whereon he re- 
 ceives the Protestant Bible. This information is of the utmost 
 and the most vital importance. The Protestant has thrown 
 ofT the authority of the church to decide the canon of Scripture. 
 It would be absurd to suppose that, disclaiming the authority of 
 the church, he is to rely upon that of the King's printer ! ! To 
 be consistent, therefore, with Protestantism, you should instead 
 of shrinking from the investigation, consider, it your first duty to 
 teach your children to authenticate the genuine canon of Scrip- 
 ture, and, of course, to distinguish the false and erroneous 
 versions from the true» 
 
 The fact is that your children, in order to be safe in reading 
 the book you put into their hands as the Bible, should be taught, 
 firstly, the authenticity of the several books composing that 
 volume; secondly, the divine inspiration of the writers of those 
 several. books. They should be able to give a reason why the 
 
12 
 
 book«5ol Si. Mark and Si. liUku, wlio \vor<; not apostlos, should 
 bo received as f,'cnuino, and, above all, as inspired; while they 
 arc called upon to rejcjct that, written by St. liarnahas as not 
 inspired, aithouLilj it is ecriainly anthentic, and althougli he is 
 certainly known to have worked niiraclcs, and is described in • 
 your Bible to he an apostle, and full of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 These questions do not ercato doubt; they do not excite to 
 infidelity in the mind of the (..'atholic, who relies on the 
 authority of the ciuu'ch for the iLuLhenticity and inspiration of 
 the Holy Scriptures, the sacred depofjte in all times and in every 
 age of the Catholic church. ' . • • 
 
 ,But you, Wcsleyan Methodists, wliat are you, to do ? Arc 
 you to control the reason and judi^'nient of your children by an 
 ephemeral claim to spiritual authority ! And if you have not 
 that authority (as you assuredly have not) it is in vain for you 
 to hope that you call stifle doubts by leavinjr^ your children in 
 ignorance of the real nature, of tho controversy; or subdue the 
 germ^ of infidelity by insi.i ting upon a submission to what you 
 have no species of rational claim. 
 
 In sober truth, the doctrine of church authority in these mat- 
 ters, is so plainly consistent with the dictates of common sense 
 that you yourselves unconsciously resort to it and admit (with- 
 out intendincr it, but in explicit terms) that the Auti-Catholic 
 rule necessarily leads to doubts, and has a direct tendency to 
 promote infideliiy. 
 
 Wesleyan Methodists, I have done with you for the present. 
 I shall not notice any anonymous publication, that may appear in 
 reply to this letter. / :■ 
 
 But I proceed to conclude my address to you with these ob- 
 servations : — .... . - '■ 
 
 ^First — That you allege that it is not honest to apply the 
 money. pf the Wegle.yans to educate, persons in the Roman 
 Cfithplii; religion. I admit it. But is it not equaily dishonest 
 to apply .inoman Catholic money for the education, of Wesley- 
 ans, or of any other sect, in dotttrines which Catholics believe 
 erroneous? As Col)bett coarsely said, "what is sauce for the 
 goose, is sauce for the gander." - •' 
 
 Secondlv — You:- letter is full of the above dishonestv. You 
 desire that the money of a// persuasions should bea])plied to the 
 education of onlv .<;<jmt'. 
 
 
 t'-. 
 
 \^ 
 
.,\ 
 
 13 
 
 S-': 
 
 'Vv 
 
 Thirdly— The ( 'aili.ilii's. (»ii-llic dtin r liaiid, (Icsiro ti) deal 
 Honestly l>\' ;ill. Tiu'y iissist upon il!.' princijjh! <»(' conunDii 
 jnslicc! — tiial tilt; in')ncy <>1' all should he ajiplicd to tiu; (ulnra- 
 tion oi'everv one. 
 
 ml 
 
 Tiio Catholic church at evcrv ]>criod and in evcrv country 
 has been the ],roinotcr of cduculion. IJcforo the Ktdorniation, 
 every p'Ciit chuicii, and all the snonasterics, iriarlos and con- 
 vents, had scIiooIm attached to them lor the poor, who were 
 cducatt'd gnituitoiisly. In (^xl'ord alone, before the Ueformn- 
 tion, there wore S.iO halls ;iJid private schools besides tiio col 
 lcm}s, Wjiero are tlu^v nov/ i . • 
 
 Wesleyun Methodists, I concludu for thq ])rcscnt. You 
 have provoked tliii contest by the bi,Lrotry and injiistico of your 
 narrow views on the subject of e;ii.ication. I r.ejoice in your 
 uffordin:^ to nie the contrast between genuine Catholic hberality 
 and the intolerance of Wesleyan Methodism. You have betn 
 driven actually to contradict Protestant p-rincijdes iu order to 
 ^udliatc that intolerance. 
 , ITow true it i:^'^ 
 
 "' Kt socuiii pctulans cmeiUia ccrliit I" 
 Youv o^i,^'lnizatiofl is extensive, and would be formidable, but 
 for its inherent spirit of uncharitable antipathy to your fellow 
 Christians. You desire to make converts of the Catholicf?. 
 (>an you hope to succeed by t!ie exhibition of pecuniary injus- 
 tice and spiritual virulence ! 
 
 Your ]Xo-Popory cry is daily losing; its force and its efficacy. 
 At the present period you could no more j:et up an insurrec- 
 tionary movement airainst the Catholics, as vou did in 1780, 
 than y.r,.u. could subvert the throne of the constitution. Instead 
 of injuring, you >s(!rvc the cause of (.'atholicity, because you 
 place io the most ])Owerful contrast with your labors the exer- 
 tions of the Catholics to promote liberality, general education, 
 and a perfect exemjjtion for all Christians from any local or 
 temporal fetters ujion the freedom of conscience. 
 I am, Rev. Sirs and Gentlemen, ' 
 
 , With all the usual compliments of ceremony. 
 Your humble servant, 
 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL. 
 
14 
 
 r.KTTER 11. 
 
 London^ Jlugust 15, 1839. 
 
 WeSLEYAN METIIODISTfti 
 
 Your reply to my first letter is a most exquisite piece of 
 impertinence; an indescribable olio of anger, rancour, and 
 absurdity. 
 
 Yet, take it for all in all, I heartily thank you for it. The 
 vexation you exhibit at being defeated in argument proves how 
 anxious you would be to controvert my facts and reasoning, if 
 you could do so» It is, however, much more easy for you to 
 scotd and vilify me, than to ahswcr those facts and that reason- 
 ing. Accordingly, you have in your own "meek and ])ious"* 
 nianner, vituperated and calumniated me with an intensity of 
 malignity which potently proclaims your sense of your own 
 defeat. Such conduct is the usual resource of convicted and 
 exposed bigotry and uncharitableness. You have a perfect 
 right to do this. It is your only resource ! 
 
 You have, indeed, given me a triumph in the confession of 
 your weakness. Many of your friends, Protestant as well as 
 Catholic, told me that my letter was^ unanswerable — that the 
 facts alleged were *so clearly proved, and the inferences I draw 
 were so plainly just and natural, that there could be no rational 
 answer. This opinion is perfectly borne out by the event. 
 You, who began this controversy by your attack on the Catho. 
 lie version of Scripture, would certainly have o.aswered by letter 
 but for one reason, namely, because it is unanswerable. 
 
 Am I not justified in this assertion, when you yourselves show 
 how severely you feel the charges brought against you — and 
 the force of the statements on biblical subjects which I put for- 
 ward 1 You must be conscious that the weakness of the excuses 
 which you make for not answering me, places in the clearest 
 light your incapacity to do so. 
 
15 
 
 My triumph is complete; and tlic joy wliicli I experience at 
 the impression which my letter has made, is, I trust, iinmingled 
 with a single particle of resentment for the incivility and un- 
 charitabloness whic^h are the characteristic feature of your 
 second manifesto. 
 
 Let mo, in the same spirit in which I wrote my first letter, 
 examine tiie excuse you make to cover your impotence to give 
 a rational answer. 
 
 Your first excuse is this. With you it is necessary to be 
 precise, and to use your own language. Here, then, in your 
 own words, is your first excuse for not answering my letter: — 
 
 " 1. Because that letter contains the most false and calumni- 
 ous imputations as well upon the personal character and conduct 
 of the late venerable .Tohn Wesley, as upon the general spirits 
 and habits of that sect of Christians which how bears his name, 
 and to which the members of this committee deem it an honor 
 to bolon<x." 
 
 Here we join issue. I did make strong and severe charges — ■ 
 not mere im[)Utatious — u\)6n the WesJeyan Methodists and their 
 founder, whom you are pleased to designate as " venerable.*' 
 Venerable ! Bah ! But I utterly deny that these charges were 
 false orcalumnious, unless that can be calunmy which is strictly 
 true, as my charges certainly were. 
 
 JiCt me briefiy reiterate these charges and show at once their 
 undoubted truth. These charges were three. 
 
 Firstlv — I chartre the Wcslevan Methodists with being inve- 
 terate enemies of freedom of conscience. I demonstrated the 
 truth of that charge bv showin«r that the Weslevan Methodists 
 never assisted the Catholics of Ireland in th(?ir struggle for 
 religious freedom; never assisted the Protestant Dissenters of 
 England in their siruggle for religious Ireedom; but, on the 
 contrary, countenanced and supported, during these struggles, 
 the o;jponepts of the glorious cause of freedom of conscience. 
 
 And, at this present moment, are you not aflbrding the clearest 
 proofs that the spirit of bigotry ift as vivacious amongst yon as 
 ever X Are you not supporting the dishonest practice of taking 
 the money of all for the education of some ? Is not even vour 
 [>resent manifesto another proclamation of the same dishonest 
 nature? — directly contradictory of the most glorious and useful 
 
1() 
 
 })rocci)l of Cliristiiiuity, lluil of '• doing iinlo olli(!ry as you would 
 be done by ?" 
 
 My seeoud clifirgo was founded u])()ii tlio l»yj)oer!sy of your 
 insinuation that you are friends of religious liberty — you call it 
 "fullreliirious liberty."' And. nofwitlislanding my caution to 
 you in my first letter, you continue that hy[)o{'risy by venturing 
 to talk, in your })resent munilesto, of /ihcrh/ and truth. Oh ! 
 shame on your unblushing liyj»ocrisy ! 
 
 Wesleyan Methodists ! — 1 will put 4hc entire controversy 
 upon a brief issue. . ;• 
 
 Your history is a short one, scarcely exceeding some eighty 
 years. Show nle within that periodthat you have distinguished 
 yourselves by any one act, or (h.'claration. or movement, in 
 favor of freedom of conscience, or full religious liberty — indeed 
 I may say in favor of cither civil or religious liberty — and I will 
 blot out the word V h\ |)Ocrisy," retract my charges, apologise 
 most humbly, and v rite you down charitable Christians, and 
 not intolerants and bigots. 
 
 It is also true that I made stronsj and severe charges against 
 John Wesley, whom you denominated venerable..'. I have 
 charged him that, in 1779, he was one of the principal founders 
 or managers of that IVotestant Association which in June, 
 1780, raised a rebellion in London; })lundered, destroyed, and 
 burnt private houses and chapels, the residences of judges, and 
 public prisons; attacked the bank, and the palace, and left the 
 streets of London crimsoned in human lilood. I gave vou dates 
 and circumstances. I also charged him with the unparalleled 
 uuda(;ity of having, after these crimes had been perpetrated by 
 his pupils and associates, endeavored to shift the guilt i'rom his 
 beloved Protestant Association, and to pla(,'(> it upon the suHer- 
 ing. and plundered Catholics. These were my charges. Yoit 
 have called them false and cdhimnious. I assert them to bo 
 perfectly true. 1 gave you the date of {he unanimous vote of 
 thanks of that plundering a'ld rebellious Protestant Association 
 to that very John Wesley. It ,was dated 17th February in 
 tliat very year, 1780. Will you attempt to deny the existence 
 of that resolution \ — or the fact of his havhig jp.erited it [ You 
 flare not do it! My proofs are ready. I cluiilenge you to the 
 controversy. But you will find it more prudent to shrink from 
 
 } ' 
 
 
17 
 
 ( 
 i 
 
 dot.-;!!, and to couliiio yourselvL-s tu a gonoral and sweeping 
 nssortioii. Will you deny that W(!slcy liad tlu; indescribable 
 falsehood to charge Catholic pliuidcu' an(' Catholic ruin, on the 
 Catholics themselves ? Will you d(Miy that he called the insur- 
 rection a "Popish plot ?'' If you deny it, I am ready to give 
 you chapter and verse out of his own writings for every one of 
 these; assertions. 
 
 Wesleyan Methodists '.--Your liistory is one of the strangest 
 exhibitions among the erratic movements of the human mind. 
 It shows how easily strong and enthusiastic; religious feelings 
 may be mingled uj> with the worst passions of liumanity, and 
 how far mistaken religious zeal can make men hate, in the 
 name of the God of charity, their unofFending fellow-Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 I now come to your second excuse for answering my letter. 
 It is in these words: — 
 
 " 2. Becau'^e. the whole argument of the letter proceeds upon 
 the most bold and palpable misrepresentations of the document 
 to which it professes to apply." 
 
 Is it possible t What manner of men arc you 1 But let mc 
 cease to exclaim, and just state the fact. The passage in my 
 letter was this — these are my precise words: > 
 
 " To avoid all possibility of mis-stating your sentiments, I 
 will give them in your very words — they are these." , 
 
 And then 1 transcribed from your document, word for word, 
 without adding or altering an iota ! — ipsissimis verbis. Yet you 
 have the bad taste and brazen boldness to call this a misrepre- 
 sentation. 
 
 There is no less than two hundred and one of you ministers 
 and office-bearers, such as you are; and you have by your 
 Education Committee-^bless the mark ! — the audacity to assert 
 that the man who gives your sentiments in your own words, 
 and no other, misrepresents them 1 I tell you at once wat I 
 call such an assertion — an emphatic but short word — a mono- 
 syllable ! There are two hundred and one of you; you may 
 share it among you, foolish * * * * as you are. 
 
 You never would have had the folly as well as the audacity 
 to give such an excuse as that identity was misrepresentation^ 
 but that your excuses were not in truth addressed to me. They 
 
18 
 
 wore r(>;illy juldrossod to i1k3 poor duluil'.ul lio[)(3s of yoi;r So- 
 ciety. You reckoned on their silly, but proini)t submission; 
 and that they would not reiid my letter, })ut take your aeeount 
 of it as true. You must have stron^i: cxpcrieuf-e of tlioir cre- 
 dulity to attempt so gross a delusion. You are, in sober sadness, 
 a curious batch ! How sincerely are the unha])py duj)es of such 
 men to be pitied. 
 
 Your third excuse for not answering my letter contains an 
 assertion of quite a dillercnt nature, and such as you, I believe, 
 arc little in the habit of making; one in substance perfectly 
 true. It docs, indeed, contain a precious avowal ! It is 
 this: — 
 
 " 3. Because the letter is an obvious, and, as this Committee 
 considers, a dishonest attempt to propagate, by means of a con- 
 troversy with the Wesleyans of Manchester, some of the most 
 absurd, though dangerous doctrines of Popery." 
 
 It is not worth while to remark how uncivil you are to chargo 
 me thus with dishonesty. The folly of your accusation mucli 
 exceeds its rudeness. I believe with the certitude of faith that 
 what you call the dogmas of Popery arc perfectly trifc, and 
 conducive to eternal salvation. How can it be dishonest inmc 
 to attcm})t to propagate these doctrines by open controversy, 
 even though it were with the helpless Methodists of Manches- 
 ter 1 You adriiit that my attempt is obvious. There is, tlierc- 
 forc, no concealment, no fraud. There is on my part, entire 
 candour; and, if your charge has any meaning, it means that 
 candour is dishonest. It may indeed be so amongst you, who 
 deal in all that is uncandid and shufliing; but it cannot be so 
 with the Catholic Christian, "Cvho has nothing to conceal, and 
 nothing that really belongs to him to disavow. I proceed with 
 your assertion. You state your apprehension that controversy 
 with you may propagate what you call the most absurd though 
 dangerous doctrines of Catholicity. What an opinion you must 
 have of the opinion of jMethodism, when you admit that it is in 
 jeopardy from " most absurd and dangerous doctrines." What 
 an admission this is ! — that Methodism is in danger from even 
 absurd doctrines. Truth, in open controversy, is in no danger 
 from absurdity; but I admit to you that any open discussion 
 places Methodism in peril. Those who entertain '* most absurd 
 
19 
 
 (lortrinos" shrink from controversy — ^jiist ns you do. Tli(»y 
 rarojiilly shrink Iroin argiunent and reason; and take rulugc, 
 just as you d'», in inciviHty and (,'aluniny. 
 
 You may, indeed, say that controversy condueted by verbal 
 iielxite is liable to bo distorted l)y elocjuenee on the one hand, 
 and tiie want of oratorical i)OW(!rs on the other; and I may bo 
 prepared to admit that ))!)jection. IJut the controversy I at- 
 tempted was one of (piite a dillerent nature; it was one to bo 
 conducted through the medium of printing and jaiblication; ono 
 In which the reader could pause upon every phrase, examine 
 every sentence, weigh every argument, and arrive at a cool and 
 deliberate conclusion. 
 
 Such is the controversy which you shrink frqm; and I admit 
 that you are right to shrijik from it. I do believe that of all tho 
 errors that have deluded the human mind since Christianity 
 commenced, there are none so totally defenceless in the field 
 of argument as tho ever-varying, contradictt»ry, and fanatic 
 doctrines of Weslcyanism. There is no sect, society, or per- 
 suasion^ that has lent itself to worse politics than the Wesleyans. 
 Either as politicians, or as a religious sect, there is, indeed, 
 little of any definable quality about you. You arc (juite right, 
 therefore, when you, on the one hand, oppose tlie spread of a 
 generous and general education; you are quite right when you, 
 on the other hand, avow that to you controversy would be 
 dangerous. Yours, indeed, arc precious avowals; you avow 
 yourselves obnoxious to two perils: first, education would 
 produce amongst you doubt and infideUty ; secondly, contro- 
 versy would scatter your ranks and thin your conventicles. 
 Thus, your third excuse, though not a wise, is, in spite of your- 
 selves, an honest one. Yes, in plain truth you arc justified in 
 shrinking from a controversy which would conlbund your 
 foolish pretensions, expose your variegated errors, and neces- 
 sarily tend to relax the iron grasp of pecuniary power and 
 spiritual despotism with which you have abused and deluded so 
 many of your countrymen. 
 
 There arc amongst the deluded many persons of pure integ- 
 rity, and strong devotional feeling, misled, even by the excess 
 of good dispositions. For, alas ! such is human nature, even in 
 its kindliest form ! I at once acknowledge that I would espe- 
 cially desire to sec such persons enclosed hi ' t'.iQ one fold of 
 
20 
 
 the one shepherd." A eonvertrd Metho(^i^l makes nn exirellent 
 Catholic. The hite Ciitholie Bishop ol" \\m (Ustriet, the Ki^'ht 
 Rev. Dr. Brninston, was a coiiverti^d Mcflhoilist. The \iv.\-. 
 Mr. Mason hlid heeii a popular Methodist preacher; h(; beeaine 
 an eminently usefid Catholic priest. How I wish Methodists 
 would read his "'Karncyst Appeal to the Peoplfj called Metho- 
 dists/' I wish it. because Catholic truth does rejoice in, and 
 j)rosper by, calm, temperate and deliberate controversy. 
 
 I now come to the forth and last excuse for not nnswenn«.; 
 me. It is (juite (iharacteristic, and piirfectly worthy of you and 
 your cause. Here it is in your own words:- - 
 
 " 4. Because Mr. O'Connell's cluiracter as a controversialist, 
 and a public man <fenerally, but viewed more especially in 
 reference to the oath taken by lloinan Catholic members of 
 parliament, disqualifies him from the office of a ))ublic censor; 
 and at once releases this comnuttc^e from all obligation to. ineet 
 his challenge, and compels it, for the sake of its own reputation, 
 iq refuse him even the usual courtesy of a reply." 
 
 .Gentle Pharisees, I thank you ! You have been well des- 
 cribed in emphatic language by the most awful autlionty. How 
 I enjoy the sanctimonious hypocrisy of your malignant pietv ! 
 li makes you adept in the worst of arts — vituperative ealunmy. 
 I 'doubt much whether the most skilful dame of the fish -market 
 niay not be edified as well as instructed by <he rancor of your 
 sdolding. And yet, I think I see you turning up tpwards 
 Heaven the well-practised whites of your eyes, and hear you 
 exclaim against mc, for being intemperate and abusive. It is 
 truly quite consistent with your habits and manners; first, to 
 use the most unmeasured calumny, and secondly, to accuse the 
 victim of your abuse with the very crime you commiti against 
 hihi. I admit that in this you are the general followers, of your 
 prototype, John Wesley, who, as I have shown, first roused the 
 Protestant mob to burn the houses of the Catholics, apd then 
 accused the Catholics of having themselves burned their own 
 houses. 
 
 Let us, however, quietly examine what this j)iece of Avhat in 
 Ireland is called •' swaddling Billingsgate" contains. It is as 
 full of matter as an egg is of meat. We will turn it up* if ycu 
 please, and the last of it shall be first. 
 
 , , 
 
•t 
 
 1 
 
 •4[ 
 
 First, tlicM, yoiulik'rmliii; to n;fiiv; mo any inaiiiur ot'eour 
 t(;sy; aiul 1 admit that in this, as in any otlicr \ iriou-s iirt»|i<MjjIty, ■ 
 you art' (juito al)l(! to cany out your (!ct(!nninati'>ii. 
 
 Second— Von state that lor ikc sake ofymir rcpntation, you 
 must ho uncivil; and 1 am siin; I am (juilo rciidy to co;»sc»it that 
 your reputation lor incivility should ho'as cxtonsivo as it is well 
 lpuu(h:d. 
 
 ],i't us now, from tiio rear of vour hatterv of tilth, como to 
 the front, and thoro wo meet your third char^i; a-^ainst un\ It 
 is this — that I have a fxnl character ;is a coutrovcrtialist. Now, 
 sweet Methodists, he it known to you, that 1 never wrote upon 
 controverjjy l)ofore my letter to yuu, except, indeed, on one 
 occasion more than twenty years air'^ when, Ixmul? challen«^'ed 
 on the suhject, I published a letter containing jjroofs of tlu; real ' 
 and adorahle presence of the Divine Redeemer in the sac.-rament 
 of the Eucharist — a letter which was certainlv lu^ver answered; 
 and von, ■who never before heard of that letter, are indeed an 
 imaginative jieople to give mi> a had chtu'acter upon that 
 account. 
 
 No meUj however, can have a greater store of bad charac- 
 ters than yey have amongst yourscdves, and therefore it is no 
 great generosity in you to bestow one of them gratuitously 
 upon me. 
 
 Tlie fourth charge you niake against me is the being, in your 
 words, a bad public man gcnerajly. I shall not condcjscend to 
 defend mv public character from the filthy slime of W'eslevan 
 malignity. I^eing, beyond any com[)aris(>n, the best-abused 
 public man now living, I ought, indeed, to be very indifiercnt 
 to becoming the object of yctur reproI;ate censure; and I can 
 very easy console myself for the entire, by recollecting that I 
 have dcscpvcd it all by my honest — aye, and my successful — 
 eflbrts in the cause of my country and creed. i\or have my 
 exertions been confined to these alone. Oppression has not 
 visited any caste, creed or color, without my giving my humble, 
 but zealous and active advocacy to the oj)pressed, and against 
 the oppressors. It is this, my duty as a public man, that brings 
 me in contact at the present moment \vith your mercenary and 
 bigottcd confraternity; and I do feel bound by that character — 
 because unwearied perseverance is part of it — not to desist 
 from my honest exertions to cxp(»se your political profligacy 
 
22 
 
 nini n>JigiouH intolcranrc, until I make iIkmii m lamiiiar to tlio 
 uiiivcM'sul mind as to iciivf? voiir (•(uuliir't wliat it on-rlit U) Ixj — 
 tli(! lioii(;st ("ojitiMiipt and tho s'lrroul'iil scnni of all siiic.crti and 
 <!liarital)l(; Christians. 
 
 Y'»ur /iltli cliariri! cxroods the rest in nialii^niant atrofitv, as 
 W(;ll as ill uiH|iia!ilii,'(l faisoliond. You acniso mo, and with nui 
 other Catholics, of I'laMinv, in violating thu oath taken l)y 
 Catholie iMcml)er.s of Parliament. 
 
 Shameless calnmnialo.'s ! 1 <lefy you. You cannot specify 
 in what such violation consists. But vindication from so foul a 
 charge is superlluous. It is a chari,o» wiiich can only injure the 
 Reverend lliggs, the Woods, and the Chapiudls — an unlucky 
 combination of nanies — who have the frontless audacity to 
 make it. 
 
 There is. indeed, a historic proof, written in letters of blood, 
 amidst the annals of (n-inie, (;on(lscation and j)ersecution; annals 
 such as you, Messrs. Uigg, Wood and Chappell, naturally gloat 
 over; there is, I say, the glorious and unfading proof of tho 
 reverence of Catholics for the sacred obligation of an oath. It 
 is this: that so conscious were their niali-j-nant enemies of that 
 sacred reverence, that the only process they used to deprive 
 the Catholics of those countries of all civil rights, of all olHees, 
 rank, honors and cnMluinenls, in the state, nay, and often of 
 their lives on the scalluld ! was tho mere obtruding of an oath 
 which the Catholics could not conscientiously take. The 
 Catholics, ricllms for llirce centuries to tlirir ahhorrence of 
 pcrjiiri/, saerilicing their properties, their franchises, their liber- 
 ties, their lives, rather than /iolato the sanctity of an oath — 
 these Catiiolics are now 
 
 But no ! I turn with contemptuous disregard from your foul, 
 as well as foolish, charge, and leav(j you to answer it to your 
 consciences (if such things be,) and to the God who is to judge 
 you as well as me ibr an eternity of well or of wo; and before 
 wliom hy^)0critical pretensions, imaginative self-justification, 
 rancorous intolerance, will appear in their natural colors, and 
 leave no room for jjaltry excuse, or wretched subterfuge. 
 
 Wesleyan Methodists! — You began this controversy — you 
 shrank from maintaining the ground which you yourselves had 
 vbosen. You substitruted personal calumny and personal abu^c 
 
I 
 
 r<ii fln' argiiiugnf-^ \vhi<|i 1 had intro(lu*y'<l; aiwl iio\f it only 
 ivmains lor you tooroui-h hcricatli tliu wcll-iiK.-ritcd diastisicmfnl 
 1 li;#vo inflict, ;<i upon you; or to have (lor once) tlu; hoiiusly 
 and inaiiliiicss to ackiiowludgo your.seivcd in error, audio luaku 
 tlio ncccHsary retrilmfioii. 
 
 Wosioyaihi ! 1 liavo done witii tlic j)oor and jialtry (.'xcuscs, 
 under cover of wliicli ynu have slirank I'nun the controvijrsy ; 
 and I now cotne to bestow u jiassing llioiiglit ujion the residue 
 of your second nianit'esto. 
 
 Hero I certainly render myself liable to Ikj accused <jf misre- 
 presentation, because I am by no means certain that I under- 
 stand the meaning of your document. It a|)[)ears sanctioic<l 
 by, and signed with, the cuphoncous name of Kigg. And so it 
 ought. B\)r it really is, 
 
 " A rpccimon rare, upon the wholo, 
 
 Of the figure of speech called kiou-marolc." 
 
 It seems, hi ono instance, to adoj)t that which in a preceding 
 phrase it lias disclaimed. It smacks, occasionally, of blasphemy; 
 suggesting the fear of God for the purpose of inventing foul 
 calumnies against man; and, if I can collect the drift of tho 
 entire, it is the cxjtression of a vicious opinion unfavorable to 
 national education; or, at least, a de[)lorable readiness on the 
 I)art of the Wesleyan Methodists to abandon all jirovision for 
 sucii education for Methodists, rather than consent that the 
 government should be just enough to extend a portion of it to 
 persons of a (lill'erent jiersuasion. You arc content, it seems, 
 to be dein'ived of tiie means of education for yourselves, pro- 
 vided you can have the Satanic pleasure of seeing others par- 
 tici})ate in that sullering. You have no parential yearnings for 
 education. It is no fondliness of yours. To you indeed may 
 be exclaimed, "0, give not tlu child to imii: sue is not the 
 mother thereof." 
 
 There is also some cant in your manifesto, about what vou 
 arc pleased to call " the ChriWmn truth which all orthodox 
 Protestants unite to hohl^ Miserable men that you are, what 
 is the meaning of this attempt at delusion? A union between 
 you and all other Protestants ! Yes ! when the sands of the 
 sea shall be twisted into ropes to bind vou in that union ! — 
 Even among yourselves, what grasp of union have you, save 
 
2'i 
 
 \;vhat rcsullr, fnnii the sordid and ijccuniary oligarcliy of your 
 corffcrcncc ! 
 
 But your object is as obvious as I must say it is dishonest. — 
 You have chuckled with pleasure at perceiving that Lord 
 Stanley, a zealous ('inu'cli Establishment Protestant, has be- 
 slavered you with praise, on recount of your resistance to 
 n'ational education. He, indeed, has an Irish education con- 
 science at tiic one side, and an English education conscience at 
 ' the other. But let hini pass. Other lords, who belong to hig 
 ' English conscience only, have likewise praised you for that 
 resistance. I wish tliov would look into your "Centenarv 
 Book," in which, with impartial hostility, you assail two of the 
 leading divisions of the Established Chiu'ch. At page 312, you 
 assail the jwor Puscyitcs, as exerting most mischievous influence, 
 and holding up tD public confidence what you call corruptioji 
 and idolatry, and as giving too much efficacy to the sacraments. 
 And, at page 115, you ac^tually treat apostolic succession as"a 
 vain delusion, and make ministration in the chur3h, and pasforia^i 
 authority, to depend altogether on the piety and the gifts of th6 
 individual,' The doctrines of WicklitTe and Huss (condemned 
 by the Protestant Episcopal church in these particulars) you in 
 your book adopt and insist U|)on. And then, forsooth ! you 
 fawn upon those whoso belief on tlK3se important points yoii 
 repudiate, and declare that you nil -all of you Mare Orthodox, 
 I wish the Establisiicd Church Protestants joy of the unholy 
 union ! . 
 
 I cannot conclude without challenging you to controvert one 
 single proposition in. my first letter, and rejoicing once again in 
 your inability to do so. 
 
 . I have one account more to settle with you, and sliall then 
 have done. 
 
 It relates to your John Wesley, I have sneered at your 
 calling him " venerable." I justify my contemptuous rejection 
 of that title on these grounds:^— 
 
 Firstly — He was an intolerant bigot, who blew the flame of 
 religious animosity until it burst out into a conflagration in the 
 capital of this great empire; but his partizans having failed to 
 tctcstroy the persons of the Catholics, Wesley attempted to 
 assassinate their characters, by accusing them of committing that 
 
 ■ 
 
 y 
 
 ^v. 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
25 
 
 
 14/ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 h 
 
 « 
 
 ■ e- 
 
 ^ 
 
 ucstructiou on their })ro})crty \vhi<;li Jils paiti/.ans perpetrated ! 
 Had lie lived in the days of Titus Oates — those days of eternal 
 infairy to the English people of that period — his sermons and 
 exhortations would not have been wantinir to stimulate the full 
 flooding o^' that innocent Catholic blood ^vhieh was shed, through 
 tli.e perjured forms of judicial solemnity. . , , .f . 
 
 . Secondly — His religious opinions were as various as the 
 patches on a harlequin's jacket. He began his career as a 
 zealous priest of the Estabhshed Church, and actually passed 
 over as such to America, to convert 'the Indians to Church-of- 
 Englandism. But the only feat he achieved there — for he did 
 not convert a single Indian — was to excommunicate a respec- 
 table young lady wh6 thought fit to disappoint liim by marrying 
 .another suitor. His first faith, therefore, was Church of Eng- 
 landism. 
 
 Thirdly — After hi-j return to England, he himself, in the 
 year 1783, declared that for many years he had been tossed 
 * about by various winds of doctrine, and that he had been a 
 Papist without knowing it. Thus, his second and third profes- 
 sions wcr>j — Uncertainty .aiid some species of Popery. 
 
 Fourthly — One Peter Bjiiler converted him to Moravianism 
 and he was then to be a Moravian for ever. His own words 
 .prophecicd the perpetuity of the Moravian tenets. Speaking 
 of Bolder, he writes, — " O, what a work hath God begun, since 
 liis," (Bohler') '' coming to England. Sucii a one as shallnever 
 come to an end till heaven and earth shall pass away ! ! /" Thus 
 was Moravianism, in fact, hh fourth behef. 
 ; Fifthly — Having put on record an odious character of those 
 in connexion with the Moravians, he adopted Antinomian 
 Galvanism ; and he continued in this, his fifth profession of 
 faith, for a considerable time. 
 
 , Sixthly — ^In his old days he invented a new species of Metho- 
 dism ; that which the Conference, the now ruling power of the 
 Wesleyan Methodists, purport to follow, with its two-fold mode 
 of justification. This was his sixth faith ; convinced he was 
 right in each, yet wrong in all. 
 
 Seventhly— Nor were these light and insignificant changes.- 
 He himself describes the Moravians, with whom he had been 
 Jong in communion, as " swallowed up in the dead sea of still- 
 ness, opposing the ordinances, namely, prayer ; the reading of 
 
 d 
 
 t 
 
^0 
 
 V 
 
 tijo Scri|)tiircs, tiio Iru'iuuiitin^ tlio saciainciils ami puMic 
 worship." Also, as ''selling their Bihles. &c., in onler to rely 
 more fully on the blood of the Jiainb." This, indeed, is a 
 frightful (Icscription of his colleagues and co-religionists of many 
 years standing. 
 
 Kightly — But when he comes to describe his next set of co- 
 religionists, the Antinomians, his description is still niore fright- 
 ful, lie asks himself the question, " What is Antinomianism ?" 
 and he answers it thus : *' Its main pillars are, that Christ abo- 
 lished ttie moral law ; that, therefore, Christians arc not obliged 
 to keep it — that Christian liberty is liberty from obeying the 
 conwwands of God." I Avill not pollute my jien with dwelling 
 upon any more of these doctrines, which Wesley entertained 
 for years, and which he himself has described in the most fear- 
 ful terms. Yet I may observe, that the person whom Wesley 
 intended as his successor, Fletcher, if possible, exceeds his 
 master in reprobation of the Antinomian Calvinism, using these 
 remarka*ble words : — " There, arc few of our celebrated pulpits , 
 where nmre has not been, said for sin than against i<." But 
 take the doctrine of that Antinomianism from one who did not 
 desert it with Wesley, but was consistent in believing it to the 
 last. I give it on -the authority of that same Fletcher. The 
 words (he quotes from high Antinomian authority, as their 
 doctrine) arc : — *' My sins may displease God, my j)crson is 
 always acceptable to him. Though I should outsin Manasses 
 himself, yet I should not be a less pleasant child, because God 
 always views me in Christ. Hence in the midst of adulteries, 
 murders and incests, he can address me with, ' Thou art all 
 fair my love, there is no spot i't thee.'' It is a most pernicious 
 erxor of the schoolmen to distinguish sin according to the fact, 
 not according to the person. Though 1 highly blame those 
 who say, * Let us sin that grace may abound,' yet adultry, 
 iiicest and murder, shall, upon the whole, make me holier upon 
 the earth, and merrier in heaven." 
 
 Ninthly — Such arc the doctrines which belonged to Wesleyan 
 Methodism until the old age of Wesley. He abandoned them 
 in his last years, apparently with some difficulty, as his eulogist, 
 Fletcher, makes his apology for him : " I admire the candor of 
 an old man of God, who, instead of obstinately maintaining an 
 ?ld mietake, coniea down like a little child, and acknowledges 
 
 f 
 
 '^ 
 
 ' ^-"**^r 
 
 W- 
 
 ! 1 
 
 «. 
 
 m 
 
 1 i 
 
^1 
 
 ■*»'^ 
 
 it heforo liis pronchcrs, irJinm it in his hdcrcst to secure. This 
 is, indued, a cliaractcristic njiology. 
 
 Tontliiy — The way in wliicli Wesltn*, liavin^r secured iiiti 
 preachers, })urifi(!(l his reli_t;ious system iVoni the doiile- 
 incnt of Antinoiiiiaiii.sm was tiiis : lie invented a two-fold inodu 
 of justilication ; one williout repentance, the love of God, or 
 other works, the otiicr, to whicli these works were csscntiaK 
 The former was for those wiio sliould die soon after tlicir pre- 
 tended exjicricnce of saving faith ; the latter for those wlio 
 had time and ojiportiniity for perf«^rming them. The ohscrvu- 
 tion of a celebrated Catholic divine on this svstcm is no les« 
 astounding than it is just and accurate. It is in these words : — 
 *• Thus, to say no more of the system, a Nero and Robespierre 
 might, according to it, have been established in the grace of 
 God, and in a right to the realms of iniinite purity, without one 
 act of sorrow for tlicir enormities, or so much aa an act of ihcir 
 belief in God." 
 
 Eleventhly — Thus, your vcncrahle Wesley had no less than 
 about half a dozen diflcrent sets of religious opinions, each of 
 which, in its turn, he considered and proclaimed a.s the true 
 faith. He found each of them — for the thne — in the Sacred 
 Scriptures ; and as he abandoned each, he found from the same 
 Scriptures that his new opinion was true, and that the former 
 belief was false. He was sincere in each belief. His avowal 
 of his change was a proof of his sincerity, demonstrating these 
 two things. Firstly, the facility with which any number of 
 persuasions may be founded on individual interpretation of 
 Scripture ; and, secondly, that mere sincerity can bo no justifi- 
 cation of any particular belief, nor any protection againit 
 error. 
 
 Twelfthly — With all this consciousness of the instability and 
 insecurity of any one of the religious opinions that lie from 
 time to time entertained, he was exceedingly liberal in consicn- 
 ing those who diliered from him in any point to eternal punish- 
 ment. For example, he taught for many years that all persons 
 under any of these three categcnv-es would certainly be 
 damned : — 
 
 1st — All who were in heaviness through manifold tempta- 
 tions. 
 
'IS 
 
 I : 
 
 ' , 
 
 2(1 — All tliosc from wliom God, ior ^vise ends, permits au 
 abstraction of spiritLUil comfort. 
 
 3d — All who walk in darkness and have no li^idit, and who, 
 the prophet sav?}, *• shall trust in the Lord andstav hiins.jlf unor. 
 his God." ' ' ^ ' 
 
 Upon this principle, he taurrht tliat if any of those persons 
 died in that state, they must go to hell, however they miglit 
 hate sin and cultivate holiness. But this monstrous and horrible 
 doctrine he afterwards totally renounced ; and he admitted it 
 to bo so unchristian that lie himself said, "When I and my' 
 brother tanght this doctrine, I wonder that the people did not 
 stone us." What would have become of your venerahle John 
 Wesley, had he been stoned for insisting upon false doctrine, ' 
 as he himself says tliat he ought' to have becn^? And yet he 
 for years taught those errors, and Vvas, upon his own confes- 
 sion, a deceiver in rrdigioji ! " venerable," forsooth ! 
 
 Thivtcenthly— One instance more. In the Conference of 
 1774, he himself says, *• We have received it as a maxim that 
 a man is to do nothing in order to justification." He adds, 
 "than this, nothing can be more false." Mark ! that here ho 
 admits that he and his preachers under him had .received, ttnd. 
 had been tcachinir a doctrine as the truth of God " than which, 
 nothing could be more false." 
 
 Fourtecnthly — You, Wcsleyan IMethodists, who claim to be 
 as orthodox as the chm-cli of England Protestants, can you 
 deny this ; that your John Wesley, being himself only in priest's 
 orders, ordained several priests to be priests alsp \ and went 
 so far as to commit the '•'■faciniis inaud'diwi^ — that is, he a 
 p7V\<?/, consecrated Dr. Coke to be — a bishop ! ! ! This, indeed,' 
 so horribly scandalizes his own brothor Charles, that it 
 created a lasting st.-hism among iho jMotho;lists ; and the 
 son of that Charles afterward;: became a Catholic ! 
 
 I oould extend this catalogue of Wcsleyan enormities and 
 contradictory vvandcrings in matters of religion, if a space pcr-^ 
 mitted. I could also point out in detail the cruel tyranny 
 exercised over the preachers by your self-a})pointed Conference. 
 But my business with you must, for the present, for want of 
 space, not for want of materials, be limited to some of its 
 ciTects. 
 
 <i 
 
 .v|l- 
 
 
 . M 
 
2a 
 
 n 
 
 4 
 
 \Vcslev, l)y llio manner in which lie inslitntcil the ^rrovcrning^ 
 powers of U\c Conference, formed a despotic oligarch \ of tho 
 (•Closest nnliin^. I'l th(i apjiointment of the men wlio comy)Osc(l 
 %iat Conlereiice, tiic hody of jMclhodists liavc no choice or 
 selection. Over their conduct tliey have no control. The 
 jiroperty of their chapels, &c., is vested ahsolutely in this 
 oligarchy, and freedom of ojiinion is no more to he ioiuul among 
 them than in the divan of the Tnrkft^h sultan. VVhat care / 
 for this j)Ower, if it w6re not used for political ]a\ri)Oncii I The 
 great hody of Weslcyan ISaethodists have always heen the "worst 
 •^politicians. John Wesley himself so hated jiapMlar liherty, 
 that amongst his vagaries he actually oHfe-red ,the goveunmcnt 
 of tl^ day, to raise a regiment to enahle George the Third to 
 plit down what he called the "American ReUellion." From 
 that day to this, the Wesleyans have been found the ardent 
 supporters of every higotted and ojipressive administration ; in 
 short, of ever}' administration hut oii'3 that hap[)ened to ho 
 tinged with liherality ; and they have as uniformly opposed 
 every measure calculated to increase the franchise, or diminish 
 the burdens of the Briiisli pcoj.le, or to lessen in anyway the 
 irresponsible authority of the wealthy and powerful classes. In 
 religion, they have been bigots ; in politics, slaves ; tyrants, in 
 their conferericc ; servile s3'co})hants in the exercise of religious 
 piivileges ; a body formidable in the cohesion of this unholy 
 alliance ; despicable in their opposition to the tranquil spread 
 of 'civil as well as relif^ous libertv. 
 
 They hold out, however, a great cxamjile ; an examplq of 
 what ought to be avoided, not of that which we should imitate*. 
 They have in their hisiory — in the dissensions that have risen 
 amongst them — in the secession from lirother to brother ; in 
 the great revolt of Wliitefield from \Vesley — Whitelield, who 
 was as sincere as Wesley ; and, above all, in the contradictions 
 and contrarieties of the reliirious belief of that Wcslev him- 
 self — demonstrated, that neither human talent, nor sincerity, 
 nor zeal, nor erratic piciy, however strongly disinterested and 
 persevering; that none of these great qualities, taken sepcr- 
 ately, nor all of them taken together, can secure man from 
 ^^ believing or teaching monstrous falsehood — from jircaching 
 "more in favor o{ sin than against it;" from instructing in 
 
 ■¥' 
 
 y 
 
30 
 
 tloctrinos so very false and criminal as to deserve the punish- 
 ment of stoning ; from fanatically disrlalminf^ obedience to the 
 commands of God— in short, from error, absurdity and impiety^ 
 No, Wcslcyans. There is but one way of security. There is 
 but one way to keep " the unity of the spirit in the bond of 
 peace." It is " clear as the sun." It is to be found in the 
 reasonable, and, therefore, entire submission to the authority 
 of the everlasting Church of God, " the pillar and LTound of 
 truth." 
 
 I am, with unfeigned pity, " ~ '^■\ - sr. 
 
 Your servant, 
 
 DANIEL O'CONNELL. 
 
 .1 
 
 
 -*v--S 
 
 In corroboration of Mr. O'Connell's Letters, we subjoin tha 
 following extract from the Toronto Church, of the 5th Feb- 
 ruary : — ' 
 
 " The Methodists arc a most exclusive body, and ought to be 
 the last persons to talk about liberality. At page 73 of the 
 * Doctrines and Discipline of the Wesleyan Methodist Church 
 in Canada,' printed hy order of the Conference, and sold at the 
 office of the Christian Guardian, is the following rule, instruct- 
 ing Methodists how " they should continue to evidence their 
 desire of salvation' :— 
 
 " ' By doing good, especially to them that arc of the household 
 of faith, or groaning so to be — employing them preferably to 
 others — buying one of anothef— helping czcr^ other in busi- 
 ness — and so much the more, because the world will love its 
 own, and them only.' 
 
 " This rule is anything, we are told, but a dead letter. In 
 plain and fair English, it means buy your meat of a Methodist 
 butcher, your bread of a Methodist baker, your clothes of a 
 Me thodisf tailor, your shoes of a Methodist shoemaker, and 
 
 ,i^-*-»a 
 
 '-hi^yt^- 
 
 4' "WW- 
 
 i^ ■ 
 
 m 
 
f 
 
 «> 
 
 31 
 
 every thing that you want buy it of a Metiioilist, if you can. — 
 What if Churchmen should imitate this kxclusivi: dealing ; 
 'buy of one another;' and emjdoy Churcliinen 'preferably to 
 others?' WJiat if they should 'evidence their desire of salva- 
 tion' in such a manner 1 This rule, it must be borne in mind, 
 is not the dictum of an individual, but an injunction of Confer- 
 ence. Were the sentiments of individual Methodists to be 
 i taken as the voice of the whole body, we might quote a startling 
 declaration, from a correspondent of the Guardian of the 19th 
 ^s# Januar}i|> who, in denouncing the British Wesleyans, very 
 modestly asserts, * The Province is ours by right : — It is our 
 natiite soiV Without hazarding a conjecture as to whether 
 this expression may be fairly taken as the opinion of the 
 Methodists belonging to the Canadian Conference, we are quite 
 content to let the liberality of Methodists be tested by their 
 own Book of Discipline." 
 
 ♦ 
 
 •1^ 
 
 . t" 
 
 
 ■*- j« 
 
 # !?♦ 
 
 *«fc*'^