Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God (Matthew 5:8). Praised be Jesus Christ!

Introduction 3

Invocation of Saints and Angels 4

Communion in One Kind (Called Half-Communion by Bishop Bull) 9

Against Transubstantiation 12

Conclusion 17

Introduction

Bishop George Bull is writing to the Right Honourable Countess of Newburgh in response to a letter from one of her Roman Catholic friends (a Jesuit priest) that was trying to persuade her to leave the Church of England and join the Papal church. In response to the letter, Bishop Bull addresses and repudiates various Roman Catholic errors, superstitions, corruptions and doctrines of demons that the Countess is made aware of. His response is entitled “A Vindication of the Church of England From the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome”, printed in 1719. By force of holy Scripture, which Bishop Bull counts as the only infallible and authoritative rule of faith and practise for Christendom, he counters various sophisms and absurdities present within the Roman communion in hopes that the Countess will remain within the bosom of the Church of England. Reading this letter in the 21st century acts as a warning to “carnal and sensual Protestants” who lack true inward piety and thus can be easily deceived by the outward and external allurements and corporal austerities of Rome whereby she shows herself wise. We must never forget or contradict our Reformational heritage as evangelical Christians and allow Rome to seduce us with her Devil-empowered heresies and false worship. Bishop Bull clearly asserts that the Papists have absolutely no Scriptural basis for a multitude of their false doctrines including image-worship, invocation of saints, transubstantiation, or communion in one kind. Bishop Bull says that “it undeniably follows, that all necessary points of Christian doctrine may be proved out of the Holy Scriptures, and that by most clear and manifest texts; which is directly contrary to the known and avowed doctrine of the Papists themselves…” Bishop Bull makes it clear that the Anglican church has been reformed and purified from the Roman errors she once participated in, and that because her worship and liturgy, practice, pastoral succession, and doctrine is now so clean, Romanists cannot stomach it and must attack it “for we ourselves acknowledge, that the Pastors of our Church were, before the Reformation, involved, as well as others, in the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, against which our Thirty-nine Articles are mainly directed; or else there had been no need of reformation.”

“Nay, sure I am, the Church of Rome, in the posture it hath been for these many years, hath so little reason to boast of her advancing and promoting the interest of the Christian religion in the world, that it is apparent, the gross corruptions of Catholic doctrine, defended by her, have stained and darkened (nothing more) the glory of Christianity, and sullied its beauteous face, and hindered its growth and progress. Let indifferent persons, that have travelled abroad in the world, judge here, and they will tell us, that nothing doth more alienate the hearts of the Jews, and Mahometans too, from Christianity, than the image-worship and bread-worship, (so directly contrary to both their laws,) which they see with their eyes practised by them that call themselves the only true Christians. And how many doctrines are there defended by the Church of Rome, which lie as stumbling blocks before them ! What a mountain in their way is the article of Transubstantiation, which a man cannot receive without utterly renouncing at once his reason and all his senses too! Every man hath heard of one great person (and we have reason to believe that there have been many more of his mind) that was turned off from Christianity by this just prejudice: ‘If the Christians worship the God which they eat, let my soul be with the philosophers’”.

Invocation of Saints and Angels

To begin, a quote from Bellarmine: “Before the coming of Christ, the saints, which died, entered not into heaven, neither did they see God; nor could they ordinarily know the prayers of those that supplicated to them; and therefore it was not the custom for men under the Old Testament, to say, Holy Abraham, pray for me; but the men of those times only prayed to God.” It is clear that there is not a hint of invocation of saints or angels in the Old Testament, and, likewise, not a hint in the New. Throughout the entirety of Sacred Scripture, the saints prayed to God, and God alone.

The first point of Bishop Bull is the following: “that if men under the Old Testament, (wherein Christ, as Mediator, was not clearly revealed) and the saints, knew not (at least generally) the new and living way of drawing nigh unto God, and offering up their prayers in the name of Christ; I say, if men under the Old Testament could make a shift to pray to God acceptably, without the mediation of saints, then much more may we do well enough without it now under the Gospel, wherein Christ, the only Mediator between God and man, is perfectly and fully revealed;” a doctrine that “utterly overthrows all necessity of using the mediation of saints under the New Testament”. The darkness of the Old Testament had no need of mediation or invocation of saints, how then can the brightness of the New have need of it, when the New Testament states that Christ alone is our Mediator? Going to a saint to mediate between you and God destroys this doctrine outright. The Papist invocation of saints includes the garnishes of religious worship, whereby they rashly enshrine their images, lift them up on high, light candles unto them and offer incense, and bow down and prostrate before them, asking that their merits would accrue the benefits and graces of God. This is idolatry! Prayer is an act of worship, whereby we recognize the all-sufficiency and sovereignty of God – we go to Him alone for all of our needs and wants, with all of our fears and desires, and for all of His gracious benefits through the sole atonement and graces of Christ our Lord. “The Papists do not only desire the saints to pray for them unto God that He would help them, but also pray unto the saints themselves that they would help them; and from them expect help. This is apparent from many of their offices, especially such as are directed to the blessed Virgin.” Save us, help us, deliver us, etc. (such things that should be asked of God alone).

The second point is that, in the book of Revelation, the incense offered with the prayers of the saints is offered to GOD ALONE, never to an angel, or a saint, or an elder. Everyone in Heaven bows down to GOD alone, prays to GOD alone, offers incense to GOD alone, worships and sings to GOD alone, thereby the honour of God is maintained. But the Papists take the honour of God and give it unto mere creatures. Only fallen angels and demons seek prayers, incense, sacrifices and worship. God’s good angels can see into the Church and give report to God, but they would never presume to accept the worship of a human being, in that they are loyal to God and His honour alone. The Papists also teach that the saints can hear even thousands or millions or prayers at once, answer each of them, and know the affection and devotion of hearts, which things belong to God alone.

Listen to this excellent quote that condemns the invocation of angels in particular, and for similar reasons, the invocation of saints: “But there is one text in the New Testament, wherein the religious worship (and so the invocation) of angels, and therefore much more of saints, is plainly forbidden: the text is Colossians 2:18-19: “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding the Head,” &c.; where the Apostle expressly forbids the religious worship of angels , and obviates also the specious pretence of the Romanists, whereby they endeavour to colour that unchristian practice. The pretence is humility, and that they dare not in their prayers, by reason of their unworthiness, approach immediately unto God, but by degrees and steps, addressing themselves to the holy angels, and by them making their supplications to Almighty God. The Apostle assures us, that this pretence is a mere cheat and fraud, serving to no other purpose than to beguile souls; and that (this pretence notwithstanding) the practice of invocating and worshipping angels is both vain and sinful. 1. Vain and rash; because hereby ment intrude into those things they have not seen. They know not the nature and names, the distinct orders and offices of angels, or when they are present and when not; and yet they pray unto them and worship them. 2. Sinful and wicked; for hereby they, after a sort, forsake Christ, and hold not the Head of angels, principalities, and powers, that is , they do not acknowledge Christ, the Head of all angels, principalities, and powers, to be a sufficient mediator between God and man; but seek out for other mediators beside him.” God alone is to be invoked through Christ the only Mediator between God and man.

When St. John bowed down to the angelic messenger, he was enthralled with the heavenly glory, but the angel told him to get up, for he was a fellow servant of Christ. It was a mere mistake. “But the Papists knowingly, wittingly, deliberately, and professedly, worship angels [and saints – my addition]; and being warned by this example of St. John, and the express prohibition of St. Paul, and many other admonitions of Scripture, will not give it over, but still obstinately persist in their sinful practice.” All of the Apostles told those who prostrated towards them to get up and to worship God alone – see the example of Cornelius in Acts 10:36: “Stand up,” said St. Peter, “I myself also am a man.” Bishop Bull also mentions Canon 35 of the Council of Laodicea, which anathematized those who invoke angels, calling it covert idolatry (circa ad. 363): “for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.” The Archangel Michael, commonly called St. Michael, for instance in the Roman Catholic Church has a widespread cultus and his own scapular, chaplet, devotions and prayers including an exorcism. Bernard of Clairvaux blasphemously recommended invocation of your personal guardian angell in time of temptation and sorrow by saying: “Whenever any grievous temptation or vehement sorrow oppresses thee, invoke thy guardian, thy leader, cry out to him, and say, ‘Lord, save us, lest we perish!” Latin Mass Catholics also blasphemously confess their sins to St. Michael and invoke him and all other saints in their Confiteor. Also, BP Bull mentions that the first hint of invocation of saints came nearly 300 years after the ascension of Christ.

Finally a quote from Origen contra Celcus to sum up the point, and to prove that early Christian writers believed and taught what Protestants believe and teach today: “We confess, indeed, that the angels are certain ministering spirits sent forth ‘by God to minister unto them that are heirs of salvation’; and that they do … ascend to the pure celestial places, yea, to the purer supercelestial regions, offering up the prayers of men; another [descends from thence], bringing back to every man, as he is found worthy, somewhat of those things they are appointed by God to minister unto them that are favoured by Him. These spirits we are taught, from their office, to call angels; and we find that, by reason of a certain divinity that is in them, they are sometimes in the Scripture called gods; yet this is not to be understood, as if we were commanded to adore them, or give them divine worship, although they minister and convey the good things of God unto us. For all prayers, all intercessions, deprecations, and thanksgivings, ought to be directed to God, the Lord of all things, by our High- Priest, who is greater than all angels, the living Word and God [ie. Jesus Christ]. For to invoke the angels without the knowledge of them, of which mortals are incapable, would be unreasonable. And if we should suppose, that we could attain the admirable and hidden knowledge of them, so as to understand their nature and several offices , yet this would not warrant us with confidence to invocate any other besides the supreme God, who is abundantly able to supply all our wants by our Saviour, the Son of God. And this is enough to make the angels our friends, and ready to do us any good office, that we are pious towards God, and, as far as our mortal nature is able, imitate their virtues, who themselves also do imitate God.”

SUMMARY OF POINTS:

Prayer is an act of worship that is to be directed to God alone.
Christ Jesus, the sole Mediator between God and men, is sufficient to intercede for us before the Father.
Everything we need comes from God, and He promises to give us all things freely through Christ. We do not need anyone to ask Him for it on our behalf. When we do so, we show that we do not trust in God alone or the all-sufficiency of Christ, and that we are pretentious through false humility.

Communion in One Kind (Called Half-Communion by Bishop Bull)

First Bishop Bull points out that communion in both kinds is the express will of Christ for the Blessed Sacrament of His body and blood. Christ instituted this most precious sacrament to be received in both kinds, which is obvious to all. The Apostles took both the bread and the chalice, and were commanded to continue this perpetual memory of our Lord’s most precious death and sacrifice for the faithful. The faithful have done the same in every generation. It is clear that the Lord’s Supper cannot be properly celebrated without both bread and wine. St. Paul when teaching the Corinthians about the Eucharist, expects them to both eat the bread, and drink the wine. It is absolutely clear, and inarguable, that the early church received in both kinds, and that for over 1200 years, until the Papists began to attack the Word of God through their vain traditions and customs. “Indeed,” says Bishop Bull, “the Romanists have no ground in Scripture, or primitive antiquity, to rob the laity of one half of the Communion, is plainly confessed by that very Council which first established this sacrilege; I mean the Council of Constance. For the Fathers of that Council (if it be lawful to give that venerable title to a sorry convention of men so wholly regardless of the command of Christ, and the practice of the Apostolic Church, yea, of the whole Church of God, for many ages after) in express terms acknowledge, that Christ instituted the Sacrament to be received in both kinds, yea, that it was so administered and received in the primitive Church; yet, with a non obstante, notwithstanding all this, they boldly and blasphemously decree against communion in both kinds, as a thing dangerous and scandalous; [they also claim there are good reasons for half-communion without explanation] and the decree denounceth excommunication to the priest that shall dare to administer the Sacrament as Christ appointed.” Let us be reminded that Jan Hus was condemned to death, and his followers, called Utraquists, because they demanded that the laity receive the chalice just as the priests. But those priests who forsake Christ for such an error of Rome are obviously serving the Pope and the demonic decrees of evil men rather than Christ. Bishop Bull proceeds to ask the Countess: What true Christian’s soul does not rise up in righteous indignation against this most antichristian decree? John 6.53: “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you”. The words of our Lord are very clear, and considering receiving the Eucharist is generally necessary to salvation, it is absolutely damnable for the Papists to deny the laity the life-giving and most holy blood of our Saviour. Let us be reminded at this point that to this very day Traditional Latin Mass Catholics still practise this massive error in all of their Masses while denouncing the Novus Ordo Catholics who have returned to the dominical and apostolic practice. What utter confusion and rebellion! The Council of Trent Session 21 makes it clear that the faithful need only to receive in one kind and that doing so is sufficient for salvation, contradicting the express institution of our Lord Jesus Christ. They anathematize those who dare to say that by precept and institution of God the faithful ought to receive both kinds, thus denying the infallible words of our Lord Himself. If you dare to question their supposedly just reasons for communion in one kind, you also are anathema. This perilous custom was introduced, according to Cardinal Cajetan, so that the blood of Christ would not be spilled, or sacrilege committed; therefore, says Bishop Bull, is Christ Himself, or the whole primitive Church, charged with sacrilege or irreverence, seeing that Christ instituted the chalice, and the saints received from it? This type of argumentation is pure stupidity and superstition, and totally wicked. Communion in one kind is an OBVIOUS innovation on the part of Rome regardless of what any of their defenders claim. The Roman innovation of the doctrine of concomitance tries to negate the reality of both kinds but utterly fails, because Jesus Himself instructed us in what to do for Holy Communion in the plainest of terms.

Bishop Bull finishes with the following points:

That the Council of Constance and Trent have erred in matters of faith and practice and are therefore very dubious and erroneous.
That the perfection of the Sacrament consists in both the body and blood, for Christ’s death is signified and sacramentally received in both body and blood, not only by one or the other. The broken bread represents His awful passion: the lacerations of the whip, the beatings with fist and rod, the spitting and mocking, the nails in His hands and feet, the crown of thorns, and the agonies of dying on the Cross. The wine represents His blood being poured out to wash away our sins and the bitterness of His suffering. Only by both sacramental elements is His death shewed until He comes again.
The Papist sophistry claims that Christ is received fully under one kind, why then did Christ institute both? We have two options: obeying Christ, or obeying the Papists.
The Catholic Church understands that communion is to be received in both kinds, and did so for over a thousand years, and returned to doing so (in some parishes) during the Second Vatican Council. But for the most part, she is not pleased with holding to the Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus, and His most holy commandments, and chooses rather to submit to wicked and false decrees of her heretical and demoniac clerics.
To say that it is agreeable to God’s will or proper for the Church to receive in only one kind is to negate Christ’s express institution and violate the Word of God through the traditions and customs of men devoid of the Spirit, having carnal minds.
We are not compelled to follow the wicked decrees of Rome by blind implicit faith when Scripture tells us to do the exact opposite of what they decree. The Spirit shows us in the Word the repugnancy of their behaviour.

Against Transubstantiation

Bishop Bull makes a point that is continually castigated by Papists, namely that to believe in transubstantiation, a person must completely forsake reason and their senses, and think of true bread and true wine not as accidentally and substantially bread and wine, regardless of how they taste and look and feel, but they must regard it as God. Instead, we believe we receive Christ’s true body and blood after a heavenly and spiritual manner, not in a carnal form. We do not worship bread or wine like the Papists, instead we worship Christ who is seated at the right hand of God. We truly eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood, but this is through eating and drinking wine, as our Lord Himself made very clear. An example is when He calls the wine of the chalice the fruit of the vine, making it obvious that they were drinking wine, while at the same time receiving His blood in a mystical and spiritual manner. Christ Himself said: “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:29). How can the Papists escape what our Lord says? Again, the Corinthians were drinking actual wine, and getting drunk. Can you get physically inebriated from the transubstantiated blood of Christ? Bread was also included in their gluttony. Yet the Papists believe they can transform bread and wine into the essence of God, not understanding that we receive Christ spiritually instead of corporally. There is both a physical and spiritual reality when celebrating the holy Eucharist. Belief in the Real Presence is in no wise negated if one believes in the Scriptural doctrine that one receives the true body and blood of Christ while eating real bread and wine instead of them being converted entirely into the flesh and blood of Christ, a belief which cannot be proved by holy Writ or even reason or sense for that matter. The Papists will claim that Protestants simply lack faith and that we are like the disciples who questioned and left our Lord in John 6, but in reality, they believe in a completely man-made doctrine concerning the Supper that they simply cannot prove and that is actually repugnant to the nature of a sacrament. The Papists believe that Christ can be eaten by dogs and rats if spilt on the floor and that He can be thrown into a ditch or trampled upon by the faithful. It is absolutely absurd and nonsensical. It is also vile and damnable. They say all this occurs by a supernatural miracle but in reality it is naturalistic and vain philosophy. Acts 7:48 says: “Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?” Why then do the Papists believe they are placing Christ, or as they call Him, the “eucharist Lord” in a tabernacle? Again they misunderstand the Dread Sacrament out of zeal that isn’t guided by scriptural knowledge. Bishop Bull reminds us that the Council of Trent anathematized those who do not confess Transubstantiation, as well as those who do not adore the wafer, carry it about in procession, or celebrate a special solemnity towards it. Thank God that Christ doesn’t anathematize us depending on what evil Tridentine bishops decreed.

Concerning the Church

The Papists claim that they are the sole Church and that those without the Romanist church are damned (at least up until Vatican 2 they did, and still many do). But Bishop Bull replies that the Church of England is not the sole church, but a pure and true church, with all of the Christian characteristics needed for a true church. His defence of the Anglican Church as a true Christian church is as follows: “The Papists say to us, ‘Where was your Church before LUTHER?’ To which the answer is easy: Our Church was then where it is now, even here in ENGLAND. She hath not changed one thing of what she held before, any way pertaining either to the being or well- being of a Church; only she hath made an alteration in some things, which seemed to her (and so they will to all indifferent judges) greatly prejudicial to both. She still retains the same common rule of faith (the holy Scriptures and the Catholic creeds). She still teacheth the necessity of a holy life, and presseth good works as much as before; only she is grown more humble, and dares not ascribe any merit to them. She still observes all the fundamental ordinances and institutions of Christianity. She baptizeth, she feeds with the holy Eucharist, she confirmeth¹. [My comment: we have offices for confession/penance and matrimony also]. She retaineth the same Apostolical government of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. And … she hath … a Liturgy grave, solemn, and excellently composed and conformed, as near as she could devise, to the pattern of the most ancient offices. As to the Catholic customs, our Church (so far is she from the love of innovation) professeth all reverence and respect unto them. Upon this score, she still observes all the great and ancient festivals of the Church with great solemnity; viz. the feasts of the Nativity, Circumcision, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Saviour, the descent of the Holy Ghost, or the feast of Pentecost, &c.; she still honours the memory of the holy Apostles, Saints, and Martyrs, and hath days wherein to express this, and to bless God for them, and propound their virtues to the imitation of her sons. ancient fasts of the Church she hath not rejected; and, therefore, because she finds a Lent, or solemn fast, before the great festival of Easter, presently after the Apostles, universally observed (though with a considerable variety as to the number of days, and the hours of abstinence on those days) in the Church of God, she recommends the same observation to her sons, in the full number of forty days, to be kept as days of stricter temperance, and prayer too, by all those whose health and other circumstances will permit them to undertake it. She still observes the fasts of the four seasons, or Ember- weeks¹. She still recommends the two weekly stations of the primitive Church to the observation of her sons, Wednesday and Friday, distinguishing them from other days of the week by the more solemn and penitential office of the Litany. And in the table of the fasts to be observed, all Fridays in the year, except Christmas-day, are expressly mentioned. I might proceed to other instances ; but these are abundantly sufficient to show that the Church of England in her reformation affected no unnecessary change or innovation. Indeed, she made no change or innovation, but of those things that were themselves manifest changes and innovations, yea, somewhat worse ; such as those above-mentioned, image- worship, the worship and invocation of saints and angels, the dry communion, the senseless and unreasonable service of God in an unknown tongue, enjoined the people, and not understood by them. Wherein, as I have already shewn, every man’s reason and conscience will tell him, that the change is made for the better. She hath also shaken off (and it was high time so to do, seeing that St. Augustin so long ago complained of it) that intolerable yoke of ceremonies, many of which were perfectly insignificant and ridiculous, some directly sinful, and their number in the whole so great, as to require that intention of mind, which ought to be employed about more weighty and important matters ; yet retaining still (to shew that she was not over nice and scrupulous) some few ceremonies, that had on them the stamp of venerable antiquity, or otherwise recommended themselves by their decency and fitness. In a word, the authors of our Reformation dealt with our Church as they did with our temples, or material churches. They did not pull them down and raise new structures in their places, no, nor so much as new consecrate the old ones; but only removed the objects and occasions of idolatrous worship, (at least out of the more open and conspicuous places,) and took away some little superstitious trinkets, in other things leaving them as they found them, and freely.”

Bishop Bull makes it clear that the Anglican Church holds fast to both the Apostles and Nicene creeds, and that her sons thus believe every de fide article of the deposit of faith necessary for salvation. Rome, on the other hand, has dogmatically pronounced new articles to be believed unto salvation that are not part of the ancient Creeds. Examples now include Papal infallibility and supremacy and the Marian dogmas of the immaculate conception and bodily assumption. Bishop Bull comments on the “presumptive” false prophets of Trent who thunder anathemas against pious souls that hold fast to the Creeds and reject their new-fangled and evidently false, erroneous, and dangerous dogmas. Bishop Bull mentions the first council of Nicea wherein every Patriarch and church had its own jurisdiction, completely free and without dependence upon any other, which Papal supremacy clearly violates. Finally, Bishop Bull says: “After the same manner, the confession of faith, according to the Council of Trent, begins likewise (for a show) with the Constantinopolitan creed; but then presently, to the wholesome principles contained therein, are added all the unsound and corrupt doctrines of the Roman Church, concerning the prodigious riddle of transubstantiation, the half- communion, purgatory, the religious worship and invocation of saints, the worship of images, relics, indulgences, the primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome over the universal Church, yea, all the decrees of the holy Council of Trent, as undoubtedly to be received. Concerning this medley of religion, this mixture of “gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay,” and “stubble,” together, the miserable Trent Papist is bound to profess, “That this is the Catholic faith, without which no man can be saved,” and that upon his oath too; that is, he is bound to pawn his own salvation, that all the Christian Churches of the world are damned besides the Roman, that doth but dissent from some one article of this prodigious creed and the main article concerning the primacy of the Bishops of Rome over the universal Church, is by all of them universally disowned. Yea, there are thousands in the communion of the Church of Rome, that will not acknowledge all the decrees of the Council of Trent for divine oracles, such as this confession of faith declares them. With so intolerable a pride, arrogance, and presumption, (at which every man that fears God, and considers the thing, cannot choose but tremble, and be filled with horror and amazement,) do these men domineer and lord it over the faith and conscience of Christendom ! But leaving the wretches to the righteous judgments of God, let us return thither from whence we have a little digressed.” “But to conclude this discourse, we may, in confidence of the premises, very justly and aptly bespeak the arrogant Romanists, that expect all other Churches should own a dependence upon theirs, and claim to themselves a privilege of giving laws to the Christian world, in the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (a learned, wealthy, and populous city, and thereby much disposed to the humour of the Church of Rome, as it is at this day,) “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” “For such is the unhappy condition of that Church, which arrogateth to herself infallibility in all her determinations, that she must equally defend them all; and if she should be found to be mistaken in but one instance, her whole authority is for ever blasted.” If even one point that is supposedly infallibly declared by the Papal church is wrong and erroneous according to Scripture, their entire authority structure and infallibility claims perish.

Conclusion

When our forefathers cast off Papism, including Bishop Bull, they understood first hand the errors and wickedness they first participated in. Their consciences were pricked as they studied the Word of God and found the Papal innovations completely opposed to sound doctrine and practice and without historical warrant in the primitive Church whatsoever. It is a great shame that in our day, many in the Anglican world (mostly the Anglo-Catholics) have rebirthed Papist heresies in their churches. Crypto-Papism and Papism in general should be vehemently denounced by all faithful Christians because of the multitude of pernicious and damnable heresies springing from the Synagogue of Satan from whence they are proclaimed and upheld. We ought to remember the repentance and renewed faith of our Anglican Divines in casting off Roman Catholicism for true Apostolic Christianity and how they gave their lives in defending the Protestant truths we love and must pass on to our children. Many souls are in the balance!