To the Editor of the 'London Chronicle' Date: LONDON, February 19, 1761. SIR, Is it not surprising that every person of understanding does not discern at the very first view that the tract entitled A Caveat against the Methodists is in reality a Caveat against the Protestants? Do not the arguments conclude (if they conclude at all), not against the Methodists only, but against the whole body of Protestants? The names, indeed, of Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley are used; but this is mere finesse! Greater men are designed, and all along are wounded through our sides. I was long in hopes of seeing an answer to this artful performance from someone of more leisure as well as abilities, and some whose name would have recommended his work. For that thought has something of truth in it, Oh what a tuneful wonder seized the throng When Marlbro's conquering name alarmed the foe! Had Whiznowisky Duke Michael Wisnowiski, son of a famous general, was a weak man elected king in 1668 by the Poles, and was a mere puppet in their hands: 'infirm in body and weak in mind, without influence, because without courage and riches,' 'an object of somewhat contemptuous homage.' He died in 1674. See W.H.S. vii. 115-16. 1ed the armies on, The General's scarecrow name had foiled each blow. However, who knows but reason for once may be stronger than prejudice? And many may forget my scarecrow name, and mind not who speaks but what is spoken. I am pleading now not for Methodists only, but for the whole body of Protestants; first for the Church of England, then for the Protestants of every denomination: in doing which I shall first give the substance of each section of the Romish tract; secondly an answer, and retort it upon the members of the Church of Rome. Oh that this may incite some more skilful advocate to supply my lack of service! 'The Methodists' (Protestants) 'are not the people of God; they are not true gospel Christians; nor is their new raised Society the true Church of Christ, nor any part of it' .

'This is demonstrated by the Word of God marking out the people of God, the true Church of Christ, by such characters as cannot agree to the Methodists or any other new-raised sect or community' (ibid.). 'The Old Testament is full of prophecies relating to the Church; and the New Testament makes glorious promises to it, and gives glorious characters of it' . 'Now, all those prophecies, promises, and characters point out a society founded by Christ Himself, and by His commission propagated throughout the world, which should flourish till time should end, ever one, ever holy, ever orthodox; secured against error by the perpetual presence of Christ; ever directed by the Spirit of Truth; having a perpetual succession of pastors and teachers divinely appointed and divinely assisted. But no part of this character is applicable to any new-raised sect, who have no succession from or connexion with that one holy society; therefore no modern sect can be any part of the people of God.'

I answer: It is true 'all these promises, prophecies, and characters point out a society founded by Christ Himself, and by His commission propagated throughout the world, which should flourish till time should end.' And such is the Catholic Church that is, the whole body of men, endued with faith working by love, dispersed over the whole earth, in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. And this Church is 'ever one.' In all ages and nations it is the one body of Christ. It is 'ever holy'; for no unholy man can possibly be a member of it. It is 'ever orthodox'; so is every holy man in all things necessary to salvation; 'secured against error' in things essential 'by the perpetual presence of Christ; and ever directed by the Spirit of Truth' in the truth that is after godliness. This Church has 'a perpetual succession of pastors and teachers divinely appointed and divinely assisted.' And there has never been wanting in the Reformed Churches such a succession of pastors and teachers, men both divinely appointed and divinely assisted; for they convert sinners to God a work none can do unless God Himself doth appoint them thereto and assist them therein; therefore every part of this character is applicable to them. Their teachers are the proper successors of those who have delivered down through all generations the faith once delivered to the saints; and their members have true spiritual communion with the 'one holy' society of true believers. Consequently, although they are not the whole 'people of God,' yet are they an undeniable part of His people. On the contrary, the Church of Rome in its present form was not 'founded by Christ Himself.' All the doctrines and practices wherein she differs from us were not instituted by Christ; they were unknown to the ancient Church of Christ; they are unscriptural, novel corruptions: neither is that Church 'propagated throughout the world.' Therefore, if either antiquity or universality be essential thereto, the Church of Rome cannot be 'the true Church of Christ.' Nor is the Church of Rome one; it is not in unity with itself; it is to this day torn with numberless divisions. And it is impossible it should be 'the one Church,' unless a part can be the whole; seeing the Asiatic, the African, and the Muscovite Churches (to name no more) never were contained in it.

Neither is it holy. The generality of its members are no holier than Turks or heathens. You need not go far for proof of this. Look at the Romanists in London or Dublin. Are these the holy, the only holy Church? Just such holiness is in the bottomless pit. Nor is it 'secured against error' either 'by Christ' or 'His Spirit': witness Pope against Pope, Council against Council, contradicting, anathematizing each other. The instances are too numerous to be recited. Neither are the generality of her 'pastors and teachers' either 'divinely appointed' or 'divinely assisted.' If God had sent them, He would confirm the word of His messengers. But He does not; they convert no sinners to God; they convert many to their own opinion, but not to the knowledge or love of God. He that was a drunkard is a drunkard still; he that was filthy is filthy still: therefore neither are they 'assisted' by Him; so they and their flocks wallow in sin together. Consequently (whatever may be the case of some particular souls) it must be said, if your own marks be true, the Roman Catholics in general are not 'the people of God.' It may be proper to add here the second section, which is all I had leisure to write, though it was not published till the following week 'The Methodist' (Protestant) 'teachers are not the true ministers of Christ; nor are they called or sent by Him' . 'This appears from what has been already demonstrated; for if the Protestants are not the true people of Christ, their ministers cannot be the true ministers of Christ' (ibid.). Farther, 'The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles; but the Protestant teachers do not: therefore they are not the true ministers of Christ' (ibid.). 'All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; so that whoever without a commission from Him intrudes into the pastoral office is a thief and a robber. Now, the commission can be conveyed but two ways: either immediately from God Himself, as it was to the Apostles, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles.

'But this commission has not been conveyed to Protestant preachers either of these ways. Not immediately from God Himself; for how do they prove it? By what miracles? Neither by men deriving authority from the Apostles through the channel of the Church. And they stand divided in communion from all Churches that have any pretensions to antiquity. Their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Churches; consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.' (Pages 8-9.) I answer, 'from what has been already demonstrated,' that nothing will follow; for you have demonstrated just nothing. Now for your 'farther' proof. 'The true ministers came down by succession from the Apostles.' So do the Protestant ministers if the Romish do; the English in particular; as even one of yourselves, F. Courayer, Peter F. Courayer (1681-1776), the Roman Catholic professor, wrote A Defence of the Validity of the English Ordinations in 1723; and had to take refuge in England in 1728, where he joined the English Church. has irrefragably proved. 'All power in the Church of Christ comes from Him; either immediately from Himself, or from men who have the authority handed down to them from the Apostles. But this commission has not been conveyed to the Protestant preachers either of these ways: not immediately; for by what miracles do they prove it?' So said Cardinal Bellarmine long ago. Neither 'by men deriving authority from the Apostles.' Read F. Courayer, and know better. Neither are the Protestants 'divided from' any 'Churches' who have true 'pretensions to antiquity.' But 'their doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone was anathematized at its first appearance by the undoubted heirs of the Apostles, the pastors of the apostolic Church.' By the prelates at the Council of Trent it was; who thereby anathematized the Apostle Paul, to all intents and purposes. Here you throw off the mask; otherwise you might have passed for a Protestant a little longer. 'Consequently they are sent by no other but him who sent all the false prophets from the beginning.' Sir, we thank you. This is really a very modest assertion for the subject of a Protestant king.

But to turn the tables: I said, 'If the Romish bishops do.' For this I absolutely deny. I deny that the Romish bishops came down by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles. I never could see it proved; and I am persuaded I never shall. But unless this is proved, your own pastors on your principles are no pastors at all. But farther: it is a doctrine of your Church that the intention of the administrator is essential to the validity of the sacraments which are administered by him. Now, are you assured of the intention of every priest from whom you have received the Host? If not, you do not know but what you received as the sacrament of the altar was no sacrament at all. Are you assured of the intention of the priest who baptized you? If not, perhaps you are not baptized at all. To come close to the point in hand: if you pass for a priest, are you assured of the intention of the bishop that ordained you? If not, you may happen to be no priest, and so all your ministry is nothing worth: nay, by the same rule he may happen to be no bishop. And who can tell how often this has been the case? But if there has been only one instance in a thousand years, what becomes of your uninterrupted succession? This ad hominem. But I have a word more ad rem. Can a man teach what he does not know? Is it possible a man should teach others what he does not know himself? Certainly it is not. Can a priest, then, teach his hearers the way to heaven marked out in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount if he does not know or understand the way himself? Nothing is more impossible. But how many of your priests know nothing about it! What avails, then, their commission to teach what they cannot teach, because they know it not? Did God, then, send these men on a fool's errand? send them to do what they cannot do? O say not so! And what will be the event of their attempting to teach they know not what? Why, 'if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit.'