Wesley Corpus

This has a pleasing sound, and is extremely well imagined to prejudice a Protestant reader in your favour. You then slide with great art into your subject: “This claim of a miraculous power, now peculiar to the Church of Rome, was asserted in all Christian countries till the Reformation.” (Ibid.) But then “the cheat was detected:” (Page 45:) Nay, and men began to “suspect that the Church had long been governed by the same arts.” “For, it was easy to trace them up to the primitive Church, though not to fix the time when the cheat began; to show how long after the days of the Apostles the miraculous gifts continued in the Church.” (Page 46.) However, it is commonly believed, that they continued till Christianity was the established religion. Some indeed extend them to the fourth and fifth centuries; (page 50;) but these, you say, betray the Protestant cause. (Page 51.) “For in the third, fourth, and fifth, the chief corruptions of Popery were introduced, or at least the seeds of them sown. By these I mean, monkery; the worship of relics; invocation of saints; prayers for the dead; the superstitious use of images, of the sacraments, of the sign of the cross, and of the consecrated oil.” (Page 52.) 3. I have nothing to do with the fourth or fifth century. But to what you allege in support of this charge, so far as it relates to the third century, I have a few things to reply. And, First, you quote not one line from any Father in the third century, in favour of monkery, the worship of relics, the invocation of saints, or the superstitious use either of images or consecrated oil. How is this, Sir? You brought eight accusations at once against the Fathers of the third, as well as the following centuries: And as to five of the eight, when we call for the proof, you have not one word to say ! As to the sixth, you say, “In the sacrament of the Eucharist, several abuses were introduced.” (Page 57.) You instance, first, in mixing the wine with water. But how does it appear that this was any abuse at all?