they will have places under the government? And, sum up all in one question: When did one half of t Lords who distinguish themselves by their violent opp sition to the measures of the government, consei that their liberty, estate, title, and life should be forfei ed, if they should assist their fellow-patriots, who tak up arms against the King and parliament? If you give me a satisfactory answer to these queries, I wil give you leave to reflect on my friend's integrity for hi: assertion. But remember, Sir, that if you flee to the back door of an implicit consent to make your escape, Mr. Wesley, like an honest man, will meet you face to face; and stopping you in the name of consistency, he will demonstrate that, according to your evasive doctrine, you yourself have taxed the Colonists, "committed robbery," and "stabbed our vitals."

You try another method to overthrow Mr. Wesley's arguments. You object, that five years ago, he did not defend the measures taken with regard to America; because he doubted" whether they were at all defensible; and you have been informed, that he has since represented the Americans as "an oppressed, injured people;" and has warmly expressed his fears, with respect to the danger of our liberties. But who could blame Mr. Wesley then; and who can blame him now? Is not a good man bound by his conscience to judge without partiality, according to the best information he has? When Mr. W. heard the clamours of the patriots, so called, who inveighed against the Sovereign, for breach of charter; he really thought that they had truth, and the charters of the Colonists, on their side; and therefore he considered the claims of the government upon the Colonists, as subversive of charter, and consequently as faithless, injurious, and oppressive. Nor is it surprising that, upon such wrong informa tion, he should have thought our liberties in danger; for if the Sovereign had really violated the charters of the Colonies, he might next have attempted to violate the great charter of England. But when Mr. W. was better informed; when he found that the charters

of the Colonies were as much for the Sovereign as the patriots had insinuated they were against him, Mr. W. would not have acted as a conscientious man, if he had not altered his mind, according to this important and decisive information.

But supposing I mistake the reason, which has determined Mr. W. to defend the claims of Great Britain; and supposing you have been rightly informed concerning the change of his political sentiments; what can you infer from thence, but that he once leaned too much towards your over-doing patriotism? He once" doubted" the equity of the Sovereign's claims. His strong patriotism gave an hasty preponderance to his doubts; but, his candour having proceeded to a close exam ination of the question, light has sprung up; conviction has followed; and he has laid before the public the result of his second thoughts, and the arguments which have scattered his doubts. For my part, far from thinking the worse of a rational conviction, because it follows a doubt, and has met with some opposition in a good man's mind, I am inclined to pay it a greater regard. And, if my friend's warm patriotism has been forced to yield to the strength of the arguments contained in his Calm Address, I am thereby encouraged to hope, that your warm patriotism, Sir, will not be less candid than his; and that you will yield to the arguments contained in this calm Vindication. Should this be the case, the public will see in you both, that Reason and Conscience can, at last, perfectly balance Patriotism and Loyalty in the breast of a good man.

With respect to me, Sir, I had not deeply entered into the merits of the cause either way, before I saw Mr. W.'s Address, and your answer to it. I contented myself to wish and pray for peace in general, without enquiring who was right and who wrong. But after an attentive perusal of your publications, I was fully convinced, that Mr. W.'s doctrine of government and taxation is Rational, Scriptural, and Constitutional; and that your's, Sir, draws after it a chain of the most absurd

and is subversive of all the scripture-precepts, whi
I have quoted in my first letter: And therefore, n
reverence for God's word, my duty to the King, ar
regard for my friend, my love to injured truth, and tl
consciousness of the sweet liberty which I enjoy und
the government, call for this little tribute of my per
And I pay it so much the more cheerfully, as few me
in the kingdom have had a better opportunity of tryin
which is the most eligible,—a republican government-
or the mild tempered monarchy of England. I lived
more than twenty years the subject of two of the mild.
est Republics in Europe: I have been for above that
number of years the subject of your Sovereign: And,
from sweet experience, I can set my seal to this clause
of the King's speech, at the opening of this session of
parliament," To be a subject of Great Britain, with
all its consequences, is to be the happiest subject of any
civil government in the world." That you, Sir, and
all my dissatisfied fellow-subjects, may be as sensible of
this truth as myself; and that we may all be daily more
thankful to God, to the King, and to the parliament,
for the religious and civil liberty which we enjoy, is the
cordial wish of, Reverend Sir,

Your affectionate fellow-labourer in the gospel,
J. FLETCHER.

LETTER III.

Observations on the Origin of Power, on the high Republican Spirit ;—on the manner in which Cromwell overthrew both Church and State with this dreadful engine; on the Republican Enthusiasm of many of the first Protestants;—on the Articles of Religion by which the latter Reformers struck at that Enthusiasm ;-on Tyranny;-on Slavery;-and on the peculiar Liberty of the Subjects of Great Britain.The Author's wishes with respect to a speedy reconciliation with the Colonists:-The happy Consequences of such a Reconciliation.

REVEREND SIR,

My wishes for your happiness, and my concern for the public peace, prompt me to try all the means in my power, to remove your prejudices, and to stop the ferment raised by your mistakes. Having therefore addressed you as a Man, a Christian, and a Briton, I shall now expostulate with you, as a Protestant, and a friend to Liberty.

The distinguishing character of a Protestant, is to rest his doctrine upon Reason and Scripture. But upon which of these foundations, Sir, do you rest your doctrine of Power? You insinuate that the power of kings ascends from the people: You blame your opponent for having intimated, that it descends from God; and you recommend a levelling scheme of Equal Representation, founded upon a natural, equal right of sharing in the legislative power; a scheme this, which presupposes, that one man in society has naturally as much right to make and repeal laws, as another. Whence it evidently follows, that subjects have a right to rise

make (in connection with their neighbours) a decree law of insurrection; and that every individual, in co junction with other individuals, has a supreme right dispose of property and royal honours, whether it be t equalizing ranks and fortunes, or by putting down or king and setting up another.

I own to you, Sir, that although this scheme wou! give me a significancy in life which I never dreamed o I dare not embrace it. The vanity of considering myse as a member of the body, which your doctrine repre sents, as the supreme Lawgiver, the Judge of legisla tors, and the Maker of Kings ;-this flattering vanity I say, cannot induce me to renounce the dictates of Rea son, and the declarations of Scripture.

Reason informs me, that the first man was endued with a power to protect and rule mankind: That all men are born in a state of civil society, because no child was ever his own father, his own mother, his own nurse, or his own protector; and that, of consequence, all men were under as strong an obligation of submitting to the first man, (in all things agreeable to God's supreme dominion,) as the first man was, of submitting to God. If Adam had not sinned and died, to this day he would have been, under God, the monarch of all the earth; and all kings would have been bound to acknowledge his supreme authority. This divine right of dominion Adam received from God. At his death, he left it behind him; and even before his death, it began to subdivide itself into every branch of family-government, and national administration. powers that be,' are said to be that magistrates and governors Old and New Testament. It appears to me, therefore, as irrational to say, that the power of sovereigns comes originally from the people, as to say, that the sanction of the fifth commandment comes originally from man. Nor dare I any more assert, that the people have a natural right to enthrone and dethrone kings, than I dare maintain that children and scholars have a natural right to bestow or take away paternal and magisterial autho

Hence it is, that the ordained of God;' and are called gods in the