. c'^C'* 
 
 
 
 
 
 <<-. >* <<- 
 
 
 ^:^fi
 
 V 
 
 
 fL^jy^lL .CL'i^U(c~:^J SleJfM^^.
 
 i' .. xr .. If ' I 
 
 k ,/ "K Af ^.-i^fy <v*t^ <^^<^ //^jA.^.^^ -^^>7vy ^/ f~/Sc,>v)(: y3\
 
 
 ^ ^^ ■ ^^T 
 
 ^T^ 
 
 U^
 
 THE NOVELTIES OF ROMANISM: OR, POPERY 
 REFUTED BY TRADITION. 
 
 SERMON, 
 
 PREACHED IN ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH, MANCHESTER. 
 
 WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D.D., 
 
 VICAR OF LEEDS, 
 
 CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO THE QUEEN, 
 
 AND PREBENDARY OF LINCOLN. 
 
 f PREFER THK ANTIQUITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH TO THE NOVELTY OF THH 
 CHURCH Of ROME." — BISHOP RIDLEY. 
 
 THmD EDITION. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 C. & J. RIVINGTON, WATERLOO-PLACE ; & J. BURNS, PORTMAN-STREET 
 
 LEEDS : J. CROSS ; T. HARRISON ; MASON AND SCOTT ; AND 
 
 M. ROBINSON AND CO. 
 
 MANCHESTER: BANCKS & CO. ; T. SOWLER AND SON; AND SLMMS. 
 
 BIRMINGHAM ; H. C. LANGBRIDGK 
 
 1840.
 
 TO 
 
 THE REVEREND 
 
 GEORGE DUGARD, M.A. 
 
 INCUMBENT OF ST. ANDREWS, ANCOATS, 
 IN WHOSE CHURCH IT WAS PREACHED, 
 
 AND 
 
 TO THE GREAT BODY OF THE CLERGY OF MANCHESTER, 
 
 WHO WERE PRESENT AT ITS DELIVERY, 
 
 AND WKO KINDLY 
 
 REQUESTED ITS PUBLICATION 
 
 THE FOLLOWING SERMON 
 
 IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED.
 
 A SERMON. 
 
 1 CoK. XI. 16. 
 
 " But if any Man seem to he contentious, we have no such 
 custom, neither the Churches of God'' 
 
 IS^OTHiNG can be more striking, nothing more 
 perfect in its charity, than the manner in which, in the 
 8th chapter of this Epistle, and the 14th chapter to the 
 Romans, St. Paul treats the weaker brethren, and directs 
 that they should be treated by others. Would to God 
 that in these days, those who esteem themselves, or are 
 accounted by others, the stronger brethren, would act 
 on this principle and walk by this rule ! 
 
 Now, however learned, however mighty in the 
 Scriptures, however skilful as critics or profound as 
 metaphysicians, those persons may be who are usually 
 denominated High Churchmen, they are regarded by 
 many as weaker brethren, utterly ignorant of the 
 Gospel. If it he so, if they are weaker brethren in the 
 opinion of those who thus assume authority to decide, 
 (sometimes, it must be admitted, without any great pro- 
 ficiency in theology,) let them receive that gentle treat- 
 ment, that allowance for conscientious prejudices, that 
 courtesy, consideration, and kindness which St. Paul 
 recommends. If they are in error, let them be refuted 
 by argument ; if they violate the regulations or principles 
 of the Church of England, let the fact be proved and 
 let them be suspended : but admonish them aftectionately 
 as brethren in Christ: do not resort to the arts of the 
 profane ; do not misrepresent their principles, or ridicule 
 that conduct which, however absurd it may ap])ear 
 to others, they believe to be pious : do not denounce 
 them without hearing what they have to say, or without 
 reading, with unprejudiced minds, what they may have 
 written : do not attribute wrong motives to them : do 
 not call them Jesuits in disguise : do not hold them up 
 as persons desirous to deceive. For why should they 
 wish to deceive vou more than their accusers ? Their
 
 principles are not those which lead to preferment : they 
 can only maintain them because they believe them to be 
 the truth as it is in Jesus.* 
 
 Among the heaviest of the charges which are brought 
 against them, their regard for Antiquity and their respect 
 for the Fathers is the most prominent. But what does 
 this offence amount to ? 
 
 Let me state, in a few words, what their principle is. 
 In all questions of doctrine and practice which may arise 
 in the Christian Church they fully admit that the first 
 and last appeal lies to Holy Scripture. To the Law and 
 to the Testimony ; if they speak not according to this word, 
 it is because there is no light in them. And where both 
 parties agree in their interpretation of the w^ords of 
 Scripture, this appeal will bring all controversies to the 
 most satisfactory determination. The private Christian, 
 looking into this true mirror, discovers the blemishes and 
 defects in his own conduct ; and the Church puts on her 
 ornaments, and is sanctified and cleansed by the Word. 
 
 But a little observation will convince us that the 
 controversies which arise in the Church can seldom be 
 decided by this appeal. The records of past ages prove 
 this, and daily experience shews it. Each party in a 
 dispute claims Scripture for its own side, and, as the 
 sense of Scripture, it zealously maintains its own 
 interpretation. If there be, then, no further appeal, the 
 question can never be decided. There is, therefore, 
 another test, which, in the opinion of those I am 
 
 * We have certainly just cause to complain of the Religious Tract 
 Society, although it is supported by many good and pious men, when 
 we find it stated in a recent number of its " Monthly Record," entitled 
 " The Christian Spectator," that those who hold the principles advocated 
 in the present discourse, are enemies to the cause of Christian Truth, 
 more formidable than the Socialists ; the Socialists being Atheistic sen- 
 sualists. They are accused, with the Papists, of " an intense dislike 
 <jf the peculiar doctrines of scripture." Comparing them with avowed 
 Infidels, the work referred to, says: " it is not possible that the object of 
 either party could be more plainly declared. The one would throw down 
 the Christianity of the Bible, the other would dig up the foundations 
 of Cliristianity aitoj^ether. These their purposes they loudly proclaim 
 and fiercely pursue. They have declared a war of extermination, and 
 the inscription on the banner of both is, I will overturn, overturn, over- 
 turn." See the Christian Spectator for September 18, 1839, and the Rev. 
 Win, Dalbi/s Letter to the Editor of the British Magazine. However 
 much in error the supporters of that Society may consider High 
 (thurchmen to be, they tire surely going too far when they speak of 
 them in such language as this. 
 
 , U!UC t
 
 defending, Scripture itself allows and sanctions, — the 
 testimony of the Church from the beginning. And to 
 this test St. Paul, in our text, sets us an example of 
 making an appeal. We have no such custom, neither the 
 Churches of God. 
 
 Thus these persons conceive that a way to peace is 
 provided in harmony witli the common rule of life, and 
 the law by which society is held together ; for how much 
 of law and of the rules of society is based on precedent! 
 They conceive that they act in the spirit of the Churcli 
 of England ; for it is plain to every one who has 
 considered the language of the Church that a deference 
 to antiquity pervades her Articles, forms the argument of 
 some of her most instructive Homilies, and breathes 
 through every portion of her Prayers : they conceive 
 that ivhen they stand in the icays and see and ask 
 for the old paths lohere is the good way that we 7nay 
 walk therein, they act, as T have shewn, in accordance 
 with a principle provided for us in Scripture, and 
 in accordance with which St. Paul reasoned in the 
 words of our text. 
 
 Now this it is that induces them to study the writings 
 of the primitive Fathers of the Church. There seems, 
 however, to be a prejudice against the very name of 
 the Fathers; a prejudice which certainly was not felt by 
 Ridley, or by Cranmer, or any of the learned and pious 
 confessors and martyrs to whom we owe the Reformation 
 of our Church. And why should it be felt now? for, 
 let me ask, who are the Fathers ? They are merely 
 ancient writers who lived in the earlier ages of tlie 
 Church. Now one would think that there could be 
 no great sin in our venturing to read the works of 
 these ancient authors. It is said that we ought to refer 
 for our divinity to the Bible and the Bible only. God 
 knows, my Brethren, that I wish the Bible were more 
 exclusively read than it is, and no one can regret more 
 than I do to find the Bible so generally superseded by 
 tracts. But those very tracts are most diligently dis- 
 tributed by the very persons who most vehemently blame 
 us for venturing to read the Fathers. Nay, by those per- 
 sons themselves these tracts are read : in many instances 
 they are the fountains, not always surely the purest, from 
 which they drink in their theology. But what is a
 
 6 
 
 tract? It is a little treatise or sermon composed 
 by some person or persons, not, certainly, infallible. 
 Now similar treatises and sermons form the works of 
 the Fathers. Both parties, then, you will observe, are 
 tract readers, and why should he who reads an ancient 
 tract be blameworthy, wliile he who reads a modern 
 tract is held worthy of praise? But it is said the 
 modern tracts are sound in doctrine, the ancient tracts 
 are not so. And, let me ask, who says this? Is it said 
 by an infallible man ? V^hat proof do you bring from 
 Scripture that modern tracts must be sound in doctrine, 
 and ancient tracts not so ? It is merely a matter of 
 opinion, and when one man praises the ancient tracts to 
 the disparagement of the modern, it is quite as probable 
 that his opinion should be correct as that of another 
 person who praises the modern tracts to the dis- 
 paragement of the ancient: and more probable, if it is 
 in the nature of truth to be better understood near 
 to the fountain head, than after its transmission through 
 many generations. Is it said that one is scriptural 
 the other not scriptural? This is only repeating the 
 last assertion in a different form. If the tract con- 
 tain anything of doctrine more than an extract from 
 Scripture without note or comment — and then it is 
 Scripture itself — it must be a deduction from or an 
 explanation of Scripture, and we have just as much right 
 to assert that the deduction made from Scripture in an 
 ancient tract is scriptural, a.s another person has to make 
 the same assertion as to a modern tract. Disagree with 
 us, if you will, in your opinion of this matter — but why 
 object to our principle while you adopt it in another 
 form? We are both tract readers; the only difference 
 beino: that some of us q-q for these tracts to St. 
 Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Athanasms, to whom 
 our Prayer Book is indebted for much of its ex- 
 cellence ; others to a modern Religious Tract Society, 
 sanctioned, it may be, by what is called the religious 
 world ; which is, nevertheless, no more infallible than the 
 Church of Rome, though the members of both seem to 
 rely on their traditions with imdoubting confidence.* 
 
 • By the religions world I mean that conventional union of sects and 
 parties which is formed by those who agree to merge the distinctive 
 features of every sect, (and where Churchmen belong to it, the dis-
 
 But it is said, " Scripture is so plain, we will have 
 the Bible and the Bible only : what need have we 
 of the Fathers in addition ? this is to add to the 
 word of God." Surely, we may answer, " Scripture Is 
 plain, and we, too, will have the Bible and tlie Bible 
 only- — what need have you of commentators ? Their 
 comment is an addition to the word of God." But the 
 Bible having- come down to us in a dead language, we 
 do absolutely require some commentary to elucidate its 
 diction and phraseology ; — a translation is itself, to a 
 certain extent, a commentary ; it might easily be shewn 
 how ours actually is so. Again, there is allusion in Scrip- 
 ture to many antiquated rites and customs ; and some 
 acquaintance with the history and opinions of the age in 
 which the New Testament was written is important ; 
 here, then, we also require a commentary. Is it said that 
 you can get all this from a modern commentator ? this 
 is true, and one modern commentator may borrow his 
 facts from another without reference to the original 
 authority, and one may copy the mistakes of another, 
 and hence false facts may become current in the world : 
 but the first commentators must have gone to the con- 
 temporary writers, that is to say, to the Fathers. Even 
 admitting, then, that it is a work of supererogation for 
 ns to consult the Fathers, to ascertain whether the 
 modern commentators are correct, still there can be 
 nothing sinful in doing so ; since for what you know 
 of these things, you are as dependent upon the 
 
 tinctive features of the Church itself,) in order that they may insist in 
 common upon what that world deems to be essential truth. But 
 the question still occurs whether that world is competent to decide what 
 part of the Revelation of God is essential and what is not. Of this propo- 
 sition those who are called High Churchmen hold the negative. The 
 difficulty of their present position consists in the religious world having 
 assumed that all pious persons must belong to it. But there are persons 
 whose zeal for the cause of religion, whatever may be their faults, is 
 ardent, but who at the same time refuse to subscribe to many of the tra- 
 ditional doctrines and some of the practices of the religious world. The 
 members of the religious world cannot conceive the possibility of sucli 
 persons being really pious and sincere : hence the hostility to them : 
 their real fault being their rejection of the tradition of the religious 
 world, the controversy of the present day having reference, in fact, to 
 this one question : according to what tradition shall Scripture be inter- 
 preted ? according to the tradition of the Church of Rome? or accord- 
 ing to the tradition of the religious world? or according to the tradition 
 of the primitive church ? — the latter being, as we contend, embodied in 
 the formularies of the Church of England,
 
 8 
 
 Fathers as we are, the difference being that you 
 derive your information from secondary, we from 
 primary sources. 
 
 As to doctrine, it is said that the wisest and best plan 
 is to make Scripture its own interpreter, by comparing 
 spiritual things with spiritual. I have already said 
 that this is admitted by those who are complained of; 
 and who are more diligent than they in explaining one 
 Scripture by another ? But I have also shewn that 
 after having done this, there are still many points on 
 which we cannot come to an agreement, — aye, and 
 important points, too. Now take any passages or 
 collection of the passages of Holy Scripture from which 
 you and I deduce a different doctrine. What is it 
 that any disputant does ? His favorite commentator 
 is brought down from the shelf, and to him deference 
 is paid. Why? Because he is recognized as the organ 
 expressing the sense, i. e. the tradition of his own sect 
 or school, just as a Romish commentator expresses 
 the sense, i. e. the tradition of the Church of Rome. Is 
 there any sin, then, if the High Churchman (applying 
 this conceded principle in a different manner) looks to the 
 Fathers, not as an inspired authority, but to ascertain 
 from their vvritings what was the meaning attached to the 
 passage or passages under consideration in the first ^ges 
 of the Church, before modern controversies were started. 
 And what makes the value of these primitive writings the 
 greater in this respect is, that the Fathers not only pos- 
 sessed many written documents now lost, but it was part 
 of their religion, if I may so say, to preserve the doctrine 
 they had received in its purity from the apostles, and to 
 hand it down to their children ; they transmitted the 
 once-kindled lamp from sire to son, never suffering- 
 its light to grow dim, or its heat to evaporate. And 
 as a member of a lately-founded sect can soon detect 
 whether an interpretation of Scripture be in accord- 
 ance with what he calls the gospel, so did a primitive 
 Christian understand whether such an interpretation was 
 or was not contrary to what he called the Catholic faith. 
 
 But it is said that some of the Fathers were sometimes 
 in error. Now I certainly do protest against the manner 
 in which it is not unfrequently attempted by not very 
 wise men to prove this, which is thus : " Such a Father
 
 differs from me, a modern teacher, therefore siicli a 
 Father must be in error" : the whole authority of whicli 
 judgment depends upon an assumption, more bold than 
 modest, that the modern teacher is infallible : or if lie 
 defend himself by saying that his is the opinion of the 
 religious world, again, 1 ask, Is the religious world itself 
 infallible? We know that the great object with the 
 religious world is to produce not unity in the Church, 
 but union among Sects; — to do this many scriptural 
 principles must, on all sides, be conceded, and much 
 regarded as non - essential, which to some persons 
 appears to be essential. We cannot allow, then, a 
 reference to the opinion of the reliirious world to 
 be of any authority in such a case. But as a matter 
 of fact, we do admit that many of the Fathers did 
 err. Who ever thought them to be infallible men ( 
 Nay, the student of the Fathers can point out to you tlie 
 kind of error to which any particular Father may have 
 had a tendency, and he can probably shew how that 
 error was detected and animadverted upon by his 
 contemporaries. But admit that they erred, — what 
 then ? Are we not to read them because they were 
 liable to error? In many of the works published bv 
 popular Tract Societies, I could point out, not only 
 errors, but if I were to use the language of those 
 who condemn the Fathers, I should sav, sfrievous 
 heresies: yet, are we on that account to refuse to re;)d 
 any modern Tract? But this is what they ought to do 
 who censure us for studying the Fathers, because the 
 Fathers were not infallible men. What we chiedv 
 desire in reading them is, to ascertain, not what the 
 private o])inions of individual Fathers were, but, for 
 reasons I have before assigned, what was the gener;d 
 system of Doctrine in their age. 
 
 But a po])ular argument against this use of the Fathers, 
 and this deference to the tradition of the Ancient Church, 
 rather than to that of the modern religious world is, 
 that it is impossible for the mass of mankind to stiulv 
 writings so voluminous. But are the mass of mankind 
 appointed to be teachers ? We may fairly exj)ect those 
 who are ordained to the office of teaching to attend to 
 such things, for to enable them to do so is the very rea-on 
 why the Church is endowed. But in no sense will tlie 
 
 A o
 
 10 
 
 objection hold as applicable to members of the Church of 
 England ; for it is asserted, and has never been con- 
 tradicted, that on all essential points this primitive 
 tradition is embodied in the Book of Common Prayer. 
 It is this that gives to the Prayer Book its weight 
 and authority as an interpreter of Scripture. As 
 such, it is, of necessity, to a certain extent, em- 
 })loyed by those even who endeavour to unite their 
 duty to the Church with their duty to the religious 
 world ; — to the Church of which the object is to bind us 
 to those very principles which the religious world 
 would relax. They may have their reasons for this 
 deference to an uninspired formulary, those who are 
 called High Churchmen, may have theirs, which is the 
 one I have assigned ; — the fact, namely, of its embodying 
 that primitive tradition, which, though not the light of 
 the gospel itself, for which we look to scripture, may 
 be serviceable to weaker brethren, when the blasts of 
 strange doctrine are raging furiously around us, and 
 threatening to bring down the very bulwarks of our 
 Zion, to act as a lanthorn for the protection of that 
 light. And if the High Churchmen provide you, my 
 Brethren, with another reason for loving your Prayer 
 Book, forgive them this wrong. 
 
 But then comes the grand charge of all — this system 
 of deference to antiquity must lead to Popery : an 
 assertion which it is the more difficult to refute since 
 it is impossible in these days to ascertain what, in the 
 sense of the religious world. Popery is. Some persons 
 tell us that the surplice is a rag of Popery, because the 
 Papists in their ministrations wear a surplice in common 
 with ourselves ; others speak of the Prayer Book as 
 Popish, because almost the whole of the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer may be found in the Roman Missal and 
 Breviary. Some religionists regard infant baptism as 
 a remnant of Popery, while others only think it Popish 
 to suppose that infants derive any benefit from that 
 Sacrament: some persons think the Catechism Popish,, 
 and others that it is Popish to teach children doctrines 
 before they can understand them : a highly respectable, 
 though, as I think, an awfully mistaken class of religionists, 
 who profess to be guided by the Bible only, think the 
 doctrine of the Trinity Popish, because the Papists,
 
 11 
 
 amidst all their corruptions, still worship the Trinity in 
 Unity and the Unity in Trinity. Now the real fact is, 
 that you may in this way prove almost any Scriptural 
 truth to be Popish, because Popery consists in novel 
 enlargements of old Catholic truths ; in novel additions 
 to ancient and true doctrines. Thus the Papist holds 
 with us that the twenty-two Books of the Old Testament 
 are canonical ; but then he adds to them other books 
 which we affirm to be apocryphal : he agrees with us in 
 believing that after death there is a heaven and a hell, 
 but then he adds a purgatory. He agrees with us 
 that sins are to be remitted by the merits of Christ ; but 
 he adds the merits of the saints. He agrees with us that 
 God is to be worshipped ; but he adds again an inferior 
 worship due to the saints, together with the Virgin and 
 the angels. He receives Christ as a Mediator ; but again 
 lie addsi\\e mediation of the Virgin, saints, and angels. 
 He agrees with us in believing our Lord's real presence 
 at the Eucharist ; he adds his corporeal presence by tran- 
 substantiation. He ao'rees with us in believino- tlje 
 Communion of Saints; he adds the invocation of them. 
 He agrees with us in maintaining the divine authority 
 of Bishops and Priests ; he adds the supremacy of the 
 Pope over all Bisliops and Priests. He receives with 
 us the three creeds ; he adds the creed of Pope Pius 
 the IV. These additions liave led to further corrup- 
 tions; such as the adoration of the consecrated bread 
 at the Lord's Supper, the worship of images, and 
 other superstitions not needful to refer to. You per- 
 ceive, then, the very great absurdity of accusing persons 
 of being Popish merely because it may be shewn that 
 the doctrines which they happen to hold are doctrines 
 held also by the Papists. Why, on this ground, all 
 would be Papists who believe in the plenary inspira- 
 tion of Holy Scripture ; since such is the doctrine of 
 the Church of Rome, as strongly enforced in the Vatican 
 as in the Meeting House. The real question is not 
 whether the Papists hold such and such doctrines in 
 common with us ; but whether we adhere to their additions 
 to the Gospel truth. To accuse those of an inclination 
 so to do, who have a respect for antiquity, is evidently 
 absurd ; they are the very last persons to sanction 
 Popish novelties, for the moment they do so their
 
 12 
 
 deference for antiquity must, in the very nature of 
 things, cease; that is, they must renounce their prin- 
 ciple before they can countenance Popery. 
 
 How can those who have respect for antiquity 
 acknowledge the Supremacy of the See of Rome, when 
 they remember how Polycrates and the Bishops of Asia, 
 opposed the opinion of Pope Victor and despised his 
 excommunications ? — how the same Victor was rebuked 
 for his arrogance and indiscretion by Irenseus?* how 
 St. Cyprian saluted the Bishop of Rome by no higher 
 title than that of brother and colleague, and feared not 
 to express his contempt of Pope Stephen's judgment and 
 determinations when that prelate gave his countenance to 
 heretics ?t — when they remember how Liberius Bishop 
 of Rome, in the 4th century applied to the great St, 
 Athanasius to sanction his confession of faith : " that I 
 may know," said that Pope of Rome to Athanasius, 
 " whether I am of the same judgment with you in mat- 
 ters of faith, and that I maybe more certain, and readily 
 obey your commands?":}: When they learn from Gregory 
 the GJreat, himself Bishop of Rome in the 6th and 7th 
 centuries, that " the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon 
 Avere they who first offered to his predecessors the title of 
 universal Bishop, which they refused to accept"§ ; as well 
 they might, since Gregory tells us elsewhere in this epistle, 
 that it is -' a title blasphemous to Christian ears"? When 
 they remember that the fourth Lateran was the first of 
 those Councils which even Romanists call general, that 
 recognized the authority of the Roman See as Supreme 
 over the church, — a Council wiiich assembled in the year 
 1215? How can they ever recognize the Church of Rome 
 as "the mistress and mother of all churches," when they 
 know that tlie Fathers of the second general Council, 
 that of Constantinople in the year 381, gave that very 
 title to the Church, n()t of Rome but of Jerusalem, 
 writing in their synodical epistle: " we acknowledge the 
 most venerable <^yril, most beloved of God to be the 
 Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, which is the mother 
 of all churches."|| 
 
 ♦ Euseb Eccles. Hist. Lib. v. c. 24. 
 
 ■\- Cyp: ad Pomp 74. t Athanas: Ep. ad Epictet. 
 
 § (ireg: Epist: Lib. 7. Ep. 30. 
 
 II Cone. ii. 9GU. Perceval's Roman Schism, p. 32.
 
 13 
 
 No, my brethren, whatever difficulties some persons, 
 relying only on themselves, may have in explaining that 
 passage in the 16tli chapter of St. Matthew, Thou art 
 Peter, and upon this Roch will I build my Church : the 
 Romish argument founded upon that text will fall harm- 
 less upon those who defer to the Fathers; since we have 
 St. Augustine,* and St. Gregory Nazianzen,f and St. 
 Cyril,i and St. Chrysostom,§ and St. Ambrose,|| and 
 St. Hilary,1f expounding that Scripture in the pro- 
 testant sense. 
 
 Neither are they very likely to fall down and worship 
 the Saints departed who know that among the Fathers 
 one of the strongest arguments, as they deemed it, which 
 could be brought forward in favor of our Lord's divinity 
 was the fact that prayer was to be made unto Him;— 
 while we fire commanded to pra}^ only to God. The 
 injunction to pray to Him was, in their minds, an assertion 
 of his divinity. In vain to them will the Romanists 
 attempt to explain away the second commandment : tliey 
 will not even commence an argument upon the subject 
 ■ — their answer being, we have no such custom, neither the 
 churches of God: they know that image worship was 
 not sanctioned in any part of the Church, until what is 
 called the deutero-nicene Council, in the year 787. And 
 the decree of that Pseudo-council was immediately 
 repudiated by the Emperor of the West, and all the 
 great divines of the day, and among others by the 
 clergy of the English Church. In vain did the Pope of 
 Rome give his sanction to the idolatry ; at a council 
 assembled at Frankfort, the decree was (to use the 
 language of the council itself,) " rejected," " desj)ised," 
 and " condemned" as a wickedness and a noveltv.** 
 
 Does the Romanist bring forth his specious arguments 
 (and he can do so,) for praying in a language not under- 
 stood by the people : our answer is obvious : lue have no 
 such custom, neither the Churches of God: for antece- 
 dently to the 8th century, we can discover no nation 
 which had not the Liturgy and Holy Scriptures in its 
 own language, or a language known to it ; Origen 
 
 • Augustine De Verb. Dotn. Serm. 13. 
 
 t Nazian. Test, de Vet. Testam. * Cyril de Trin. Lib. 4. 
 
 §St. Chrysost. Horn. .55. in Mat. || Ambros. Com. in Ephes. 
 
 H Hilar, de Trin. Lib. 2. c. G. •• Canon. 11 Cone: FrankL
 
 14 
 
 expressly stating that in his time every person prayed to 
 God in his own tongue, the Greeks using the Greek, the 
 Romans the Roman Language.^ 
 
 Think you those who defer to the primitive tradition of 
 the Church will join with the Papists in enforcing the 
 practice of auricular confession to the Priest ? No, my 
 brethren, though the Church of England does recom- 
 mend, in her first exhortation to the Holy Communion, 
 that if " any one cannot quiet his conscience, but requireth 
 further comfort and counsel, he should go to some 
 discreet and learned minister of God, and open his 
 grief, that by the ministry of God's Holy Word he 
 may receive the benefit of absolution, together with 
 ghostly counsel and advice"; though such be the recom- 
 mendation of the Church of England,f we know that 
 auricular confession was never imposed as necessary 
 until the Lateran Council in 1215. 
 
 It is sometimes insinuated that those w^ho have a 
 respect for the practices of antiquity, must be in favor of 
 the celibacy of the Clergy, and it seems in vain that such 
 clergymen by their own marriage shew practically tlie 
 injustice of the insinuation. But on this point we are 
 under no concern ; we still say to the Romanists, me 
 have no such custom, neither the Churches of God. 
 It is true that many of the Fathers felt strongly with 
 Richard Baxter, the celebrated non-conformist, that 
 it might often be " inconvenient for ministers to marry 
 who have no sort of necessity";}; : these are the words 
 of that pious non-conformist, and, perhaps, he thou^-ht, 
 as the Fathers thought, that the same was tauirht 
 by St. Paul, in the 7th chapter of the First Epistle 
 to the Corinthians : they — St. Paul, the Fathers, 
 and that pious non-conformist — thought that men 
 were ordained not merely to make themselves com- 
 fortable, and to maintain a respectable station in 
 Society, — ^Imt to devote all their energies, their Body, 
 
 • Orig. Cont. Cels. Lib. viii. p. 402. 
 
 -f- " Sudden changes without substantial necessary causes and the 
 heady setting forth of extremities I did never love. Confession to the 
 Minister which is able to instruct, comfort, and inform the weak and 
 ignorant consciences, I have ever thought might do much good in 
 Christ's congregation, and so I assure you I do at this day." — Bishop 
 Jlidley^s Letter. Appendix to Strype's Cranmer, ii. 965. 
 X Life of Mrs. Margaret Baxter, Chap. vi.
 
 15 
 
 Soul, and Spirit, to the service of the Saviour, who 
 bought them with his Blood : and they thouo-ht that in 
 many instances men could do this better without the 
 burden of a family than with it : many of tlie Fathers may 
 have erred in this opinion ; and those who censure that 
 opinion, may, I suppose, likewise err : — some of them 
 may have carried their notions on this point to an extreme 
 and I, for one, think that they did so"^ : but they were not 
 the authors of that iniquitous and demoralizing and 
 soul-destroying rule of the Romish Churcli, by which 
 Priests are constrained to vow a single life : for this rule 
 was first obtruded in the Western Church (it is not even 
 yet the rule of the Eastern Church,) by Pope Hildebrand 
 in the year 1074 : and then the innovation was sturdily 
 opposed by many of our English Clergy.f 
 
 But we will advance yet further. There is an inclina- 
 tion on the part of some Protestants to the doctrine of 
 Purgatory: for what is Hell, in the estimation of those 
 who deny the eternity of future punishments, but a Pur- 
 gatory ? And to those inclined to think well of tlie 
 doctrine, the Romanist has some apparent scriptural 
 authority to produce. He refers us to the third chapter 
 of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, where we read at 
 the 13th versjg : The fire shall try every mans work of 
 what sort it is. If any mans luork abide which he hath 
 built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any mans 
 work be burned, he shall sufifer loss, yet he himself shall 
 be saved yet so as by fire. By such a passage some 
 persons may be staggered, but we can answer, We have 
 no such custom, neither the Churches of God : and for the 
 truth of our position we can appeal to Bishop Fisher, a 
 martyr to the Romish cause, who expressly tells us that 
 " the doctrine of Purgatory was rarely, if at all, heard of 
 among the ancients ; and to this very day, the Greeks 
 
 ■ I may add that, some of tlie opinions advanced on this subject by 
 some of tlie learned and pious writers of the Oxford Tracts appear to 
 me to be incautious. I admit that the argument in favor of the 
 celibacy of the clergy is strong, and such as to recommend itself to 
 pure and holy and devoted minds. It looks well on paper. But the 
 experiment has been made, and if has failed. 
 
 + It was not till the time of William of Corboil, about 1120, that the 
 marriage of Secular Priests was put down in England. Anselm seems 
 to have attempted it about 1102, but Henry I. opposed him. It is 
 plain that many Bishops in that reign and later were married men. 
 See Collier of Geoffrey Rydal, Bishop of Ely. 1174—89. Collier, i. 381.
 
 16 
 
 believe it not:" and he adds, with reference to the doc- 
 trine of Indulgences, " so long as men were unconcerned 
 about Purgatory, nobody inquired after Indulgences, for 
 on that all their worth depends."* Yes, and we can 
 quote passages innumerable from the Fathers to shew 
 that tlie ancient faith was, as the true faith is, that w^hen 
 our life in this world is brought to a close, our state of 
 probation ceasesf ; aye, and we can shew that the first 
 authoritative decree concerning Purgatory was made so 
 lately as in the Council of Florence in the year 1438. 
 
 And be not astonished, brethren, at the admission 
 made by Bishop Fisher; — I could produce to you similar 
 admissions from Romish divines on almost every point. 
 Of all vulgar errors, as you must have already perceived, 
 none can be greater than that which would represent 
 the Papists as appellants to antiquity. Their principle 
 is obedience to those who from time to time occupy the 
 place of ecclesiastical rulers. These, in their opinion, con- 
 stitute that Church whicli is to be heard under penalty 
 of beino- accounted a heathen or a publican ; consequently 
 there is no room for an appeal to antiquity, and accord- 
 ingly the attempt to appeal from the present to the 
 ancient Church has been branded by them, as Bishop 
 Jebb shews, with the odious stamp of heresy. J 
 
 But it is said that those who defer to tradition hold 
 the dogma of Transubstantiation. That the Fathers did 
 hold the doctrine of our Lord's real presence in the 
 Eucharist, (real though spiritual, or rather the more 
 real because spiritual,) we not only do not deny, but un- 
 equivocally assert. That is to say, they held what the 
 Church of England holds, and w^hat our wise-hearted 
 Reformers maintained on this subject: for, as Bishop 
 Cleaver observes, " the great object of our Reformers 
 was, whilst they acknowledged the doctrine of the real 
 presence, to refute that of Transubstantiation, as it was 
 afterwards to refute the notion of Impanation or Con- 
 substantiation"§: the Fathers held with the Church of 
 
 • Op. p. 496, Ed. 1597, Art. Cont. Lutherum. 
 
 t Percpval on the Roman Schism, p. 354. 
 
 X Bishop Jebb, Peculiar Character of the Church of England, p. 289. 
 
 § Bishop Cleaver's Sermon, Nov. 25, 1787. See also Bishop Ridlej'a 
 
 Treatise against the Error of Transubstantiation ; Bishop Poynel's 
 
 Treatise of Reconciliation, or Diallacticon, and Archbishop Cranmei's 
 
 Defence of the Catholic doctrine. B, iii.
 
 17 
 
 England that the body and blood of Christ are verily 
 and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the 
 Lord's Supper ; they were wont to exhort their hearers, 
 as the Church of England exiiorts us, to consider the 
 dignity of those high and holy mysteries ;^ of that higlt 
 mystery, that heavenly feast, the banquet of that most 
 heavenly food : all expressions of our Liturgy: they did, 
 indeed, look upon the altar to be, as our xxvii. Homily 
 calls it, " The King of Kings Table' : they were wont 
 to declare, as in that Homily is declared, " Thus much 
 we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord 
 there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure 
 of a thing absent" ; but "that the faithful receive not 
 only the outvvard Sacrament, but the spiritual thing also ; 
 not the figure but the truth; not the shadow only, but 
 the Body." So says the Church of England, and so 
 said the Fathers. If some persons cannot make a 
 distinction between the real presence of Christ in his 
 spirit and power, and the corporeal presence, which is 
 Transubstantiation, and so accuse us of Popish doctrine, 
 they must blame the Church of England too ; and so 
 we err in good company. To censure the dogma of 
 Transubstantiation too strongly is impossible, because 
 it has not only given occasion, as our 28th article 
 mildly states it, to many superstitions ; but it has also 
 led to the assertion and belief of what to my mind 
 is absolutely blasphemous, that there is in the Eucharist 
 an expiatory sacrifice : that therein, I utter it with 
 horror, our Blessed Lord and Saviour is each time 
 sacrificed afresh ; that there is each time a fresh 
 immolation and death. But still, the only real question 
 is this, Has it been revealed 1 — Is it part of tlie 
 Revelation of God to man ? The Romanist atfirnis 
 that it is, and he refers to our Lord's own words, 
 This is my Body, — This is my Blood. He calls upon 
 us, in humble faitli, to receive these words in the literal 
 sense. To this all Protestants demur : the liomanist 
 has, of course, a right to demand the reason : by some 
 persons he is told that the doctrine of transubstanfi ition, 
 which he would build upon this })assage, involves an 
 impossibility ; that it is an insult to the understanding, 
 a contradiction to the senses, to call upon us to embrace 
 * Exhortation to Communion Office.
 
 18 
 
 it. Are you contented with these — what shall I call 
 tlieni ? — aro:nments? or dog^matisms ? It mav be that 
 you are ; but when you try to convert the Romanist, he 
 replies that he sees no more difficulty in believing the 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation than in receiving the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. Upon this, perhaps, you refine 
 and you point out the difference between things above 
 reason and thing^s contrary to reason, which is doubtless 
 perfectly correct, but it is a refinement as difficult to 
 unlearned minds as anvthino^to be found in the writing^s 
 of the Fathers. And in spite of it, when you are engaged 
 in controversy with the Socinian you may perhaps find 
 «ome of these hard words retorted upon yourself. The 
 Socinian will speak of impossibilities, insults to the 
 understanding, contradiction to the senses and so forth. 
 But we will not quarrel with those who thus attempt to 
 refute the dogma of Transubstantiation. All that we say 
 is that we do not like to elevate ourselves and to judge 
 of what the Almio-htv can do or cannot do. And cer- 
 tainly our mode of proceeding is far easier and more 
 intellio:ible to the brethren at lartre. We tell the 
 Romanist that we understand the passage referred to, 
 with the English Church, in a sublime and mysterious, 
 but not in a literal sense. For as the Catholic creeds 
 and holy Scripture teach, we believe our holy Redeemer's 
 body is in heaven, and will there remain, till he shall come, 
 in like manner as he ascended, at the end of the world 
 to judge the quick and the dead. And as to the dogma 
 of Transubstantiation, ice have no such custom^ neither the 
 Churches of God. If that passage implies the doctrine of 
 Transubstantiation, we ask how came it to pass that this 
 doctrine was unknown to the Catholic Church for seven 
 hundred years? We know it as an indisputable fact 
 that this error was first started in the eighth century ; 
 that it found its most able advocate in Pascasius Radbert, 
 in the ninth century; and that when this error was first 
 introduced, it was spoken of by Raban Maurus, the pupil 
 of our countryman Aleuin, Archbishop of Mentz, as aji 
 error broached by some individuals " unsoundly thinking 
 OF LATE," and by the contemporary Divines of the 
 Churches of England and Ireland it was strongly 
 opposed.* We know, moreover, that it was not 
 
 • See Perceval's Roman Schism, 40, 56, 132, 346, 22o, 372, 429.
 
 19 
 
 authoritatively received even by the Roman Church till 
 the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215. So, 
 then, brethren, those who defer to Primitive Tradition, 
 and study the writings of the Ancients, may be thought 
 by some persons to be the most judicious opponents 
 of Romanism,^ — but certain it is, that they can- 
 
 • The question as to the proper manner of opposing Romanism is 
 one of great importance. I can state it on high authority, that the 
 Papists always calculate on twenty or thirty converts to their system, 
 after a meeting in any place of the so-callerl Reformation Society. The 
 declamatory violence at these meetings disgusts some persons, in others 
 doubts are suggested while weak arguments are used to answer them, 
 and recourse ii<e/entually had, under tue idea of hearing both sides, to 
 the Romish Priest for their solution. To support a good causo with bad 
 arguments is the best aid that can be given to those whose cause is bad. 
 There are many anti-popery sermons and speeclies reported in the 
 newspapers which suggest a doubt to the mind whether those who 
 delivered them were the more ignorant of the doctrines of the Church 
 of Rome, or of the doctrines of the Church of England. And it is no 
 new art of the Romanists to attack the Church in this way by their 
 own emissaries in disguise. "In the 16th century, one Cumjuin, a 
 friar, [contrived to be taken into the Puritans' pulpits, where, as he 
 stated at the Councils, ' I preached against set forms of prayer, and 
 I called English prayers, English mass, and have persuaded several 
 to pray spiritually and extempore: and this hath so taken with the 
 people that the Church of England is become as odious to that sort 
 of people whom T instructed, as the mass is to the Church of England, 
 and this will be a stumbling block to that Church so long as it is 
 a Church.' For this the Poj)e commended him and gave him a 
 reward of 2000 ducats for his good service. Are there not many 
 at the present day, of whom if they were to apply to the Pope 
 for a reward on tlie same score, all the world could witness that they 
 have well deserved it at his hands? Surely our opponents have some 
 reason to feel misgivings when they find themselves treading in the 
 footsteps of the Heathen revilers of Christianity, and of the Popish 
 hireling underminers of the bulwark of Protestantism. — Perceval on 
 Apostolical Succession, pp. G4, Go." I may here remark on the craft 
 of the Romanists of the present day. In order to cause division among 
 Protestants, in some of their publications they are said to have spoken 
 of the writers of the Oxford Tracts as allies. In the report, however, 
 of one of Dr. ^Viseman's Lpctures to Romanists at Manchester, it 
 appears that " he broke out in a strain of passionate invective against 
 the writers of the Tracts for the Times, denouncing them, and com- 
 plaining that they had started a line of argument against their Popish 
 opponents that had been left undisturbed for a century." — Manchester 
 Courier, Oct. 26, 1830. To the falsehoods of Popish Priests I have 
 traced many of the absurd stories propagated by Dissenters against 
 consistent Churchmen. 
 
 On the publication of the first Edition of this Sermon, I was called 
 upon by an Agent of the Reformation Society to name to him my 
 authority for stating that the Romanists calculate on twenty or thirty 
 converts after a meeting in any place of the Reformation Society. If I 
 had been at liberty to name my authority, I should have done so before. 
 I only desired before, and I only desire now, that the statement may
 
 20 
 
 not receive the Komisli doctrine of Transubstantiation 
 until they have renounced these principles. No, nor 
 with reference to the Eucharist will they ever consent to 
 withhold the cup from the laity, an injustice, robbery, 
 and wrong, not sanctioned even by the Romish Church 
 till the Council of Constance in 1414. 
 
 I will refer to one other topic and then conclude. 
 That which, in my humble opinion, makes the Church 
 of Rome, and all Churches connected with her, by 
 receiving the decrees of the Council of Trent, to be 
 absolutely heretical, — that which has separated them 
 from the Catholic Church itself, that which renders all 
 union with them utterly impossible, is this : — that to the 
 Scriptures of God and the Creeds of the Church they 
 have made additions. To the three Creeds which we 
 possess in common with the whole Church, they have 
 added the Creed of Pope Pius the IV.; and they receive 
 the Books of the Apocrypha as equally sacred and 
 canonical with the Books of Holy Scripture. jN^ow I 
 ask how are we to prove that in so doing the Romish 
 Church is in error? How but by consulting those very 
 Fathers, for havino^ a reo:ard for whom we are too often 
 misrepresented ? How but by referring to Origen, and 
 Eusebius, and St. Athanasius, and St. Hilary, and 
 Epiphanius, and St. Gregory IS^azianzen, and St. 
 Jerome* : the latter of whom, after enumerating the 
 Canonical Books of Scripture, expressly declares that 
 " whatever is beside these is to be reckoned among the 
 Apocrypha"? How but by reference to the Councils 
 of Chalcedon, and Laodicea, and Nice, and to the 
 Apostolical canons ? Perhaps those who disapprove of 
 this, are contented with the authority of some modern 
 writer who asserts that he has examined the subject. Be 
 it so ; and the Romanist may be perplexed to understand 
 why he is to be blamed for placing the same confidence 
 in his writers who make an assertion contrary to that on 
 
 be received with just so much of credit as attaches to my word that I 
 made it on high authority : authority as high as that of Dr. Wiseman 
 when his opinion is quoted with reference to High Churchmen. The 
 Romanists may err in their calculation, as Dr. Wiseman does in 
 calculating the bad influence of High-Church principles; I merely state 
 what they assert. 
 
 * Praef in Librum Regum. S.?e the quotations at length in Perceval, 
 420; and the Councils, pi'. 41, 56, 159, 362.
 
 21 
 
 which the Protestant relies. But, at all events, it cannot 
 be sinful in us to examine the Fathers and Councils them- 
 selves to be certain that the modern writer is correct. 
 And so you see that the Fathers are not utterly to be 
 despised ; but some regard to antiquity may be of service 
 to our learned men. And he who shall tell us, as we 
 have been virtually told of late, " if these books contain 
 the same doctrine v,'ith the Bible they can be of no use 
 since the Bible contains all necessary truth, but if they 
 contain anything contrary to the Bible they ought not 
 to be suffered, let them, therefore, be destroyed," will 
 reason more like the Moslem fanatic than an enlightened 
 Christian. 
 
 In what has now been said, it has not been my wish 
 to give unnecessary offence. My chief object has been 
 to shew that into whatever errors our respect for 
 antiquity may lead us — and, since all things connected 
 with man are liable to abuse, I am ready to admit that 
 there may be some errors, — it is not to Popery that 
 it tends : nay, that armed as others may think themselves 
 b}' arguments, we are doubly armed : we have their 
 arguments, for as much as they are worth, *and we have, 
 moreover, the testimony of the primitive Church. As 
 a very learned man of this town profoundly remarks, 
 " Tradition itself is the very evidence on which we 
 convict what are called Traditions, (by the Papists, 
 of defective authority."* If the charge of our being 
 popishly affected be brought against us, because even 
 to Romanists we would extend our charit}^, and instead 
 of returning railing for their railing would convince 
 them by argument, while we treat them with that 
 courtesy which Christianity does not absolutely forbid ; 
 and, admit, what in candour must be admitted, that tliey 
 have much in their system that is true, for they have 
 much in common, not only with the Church of England, 
 but with all Protestants except the " Unitarians": if on 
 this account the charge be brought against us, to it we 
 must plead guilty. By some persons it is not considered 
 a breach of Christian charity to adopt towards the 
 Romish Dissenters every species of vituperation which 
 the arts of rhetoric and a skilful periphrasis may render 
 not vulgar ; it is not considered a breach of Christian 
 
 • Parkinson's Hulsean Lectures, 1838, p. 84.
 
 22 
 
 charity to excite against them the wildest j^assions of 
 the fanatic, and to exhibit, instead of the gentle per- 
 suasions of the Christian preacher, a close imitation of 
 the vehement declamations of the heathen orator ; 
 but against Protestant Dissenters, whom the religious 
 world, (not infallible, but acting as if it were so) pro- 
 nounces to be orthodox, to insinuate that they may err 
 on an}' essential point, is a ])reach of charity which is, 
 in the eyes of the religious world, unpardonable. Now, 
 my brethren, the true Churchman stands fairly and boldly 
 in the middle way : he considers both, the Protestant 
 and the Romish Dissenter, to be in error — the latter 
 by adding to, the former by detracting from, the 
 doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church. He 
 conceives it to be the part both of duty and of 
 charitv to maintain that middle position in which God 
 has placed him, and, as occasion offers, to warn either 
 side of the errors committed on that side, and of the 
 danger, when warned, of adhering to them. But here 
 he remains: he advances no further: he assumes not to 
 himself the character of judge, when our Lord commands 
 us Judge vot. What amount of truth it may be necessary 
 for each individual, for his salvation to possess, he knows 
 not. He only knows that each man will be judged by 
 that he hath, not hy that he hath not; and that our 
 duty it is, without respect of persons, without caring for 
 whom it may seem to condemn, to declare all the counsel 
 of God. We treat no error with toleration ; we treat 
 no person with unkindness or disrespect. If we see 
 the Protestant Dissenter or the Romish Dissenter sur- 
 passing us in holiness, we do not pronounce them to be 
 free from error, nor do we' represent their errors as 
 trivial, or conceal from them our opinion, that if the 
 means of avoiding those errors have been within their 
 reach they will be accountable to God for not having 
 recourse to them: but we do say in great humility. What 
 a man would this have been had he been blessed with 
 my superior advantages ! And what a sinner am I, that 
 with all my superior advantages I am in my conduct his 
 inferior ! and this sends us to our knees and our self- 
 denials, that we may obtain pardon for the past through 
 the merits and intercession of an Almighty Saviour ; and 
 grace for the future, to form habits of stricter piety.
 
 23 
 
 In short, we learn from Scripture) as well as from 
 antiquity, that a firm uncompromising adherence to our 
 principles, a calm, steady, zealous promulgation of the 
 truth, and a fearless rebuke of error, are all parts of 
 Christian charity : but when either Romanist or Protes- 
 tant has recourse to persecution whether physical or 
 moral, to the horrors of the inquisition or to railing 
 accusations, we reply, We have no such custom, neither 
 the Churches of God. 
 
 POSTSCRIPTUM. 
 
 While this Sermon was passing through the press, 
 the following letter was received from the learned and 
 pious Rector of Crayke, whose permission to publish it 
 has been obtained. In order to guard against miscon- 
 ception, I may observe that my statement is this : that 
 the tendency of our principle is not to Romanism but 
 the contrary ; and that of those who have maintained 
 that principle we know of none who have been perverted 
 to Popery. But I do honestly confess that, from the 
 aspect of the times, I have my fears that the ranks 
 of Popery may be increased, not from the exertions 
 of the Romanists, but from the violence of temper, the 
 uncharitable conduct, the misrepresentation of facts 
 and persons, displayed by some portions of the ultra- 
 protestant press. The extreme intolerance mani- 
 fested by some parties against all who do not go all 
 lengths with the protestant religious world, is certainly 
 alienating many minds from Protestantism. In the 
 opinion of those who agree with the present writer the 
 only way to prevent such persons from falling into 
 Popery is to prove to them that Romanism is not 
 Catholicism ; that it is a novelty ; and then to adhere, 
 as closely as circumstances w^ill admit, to all that is 
 really ancient. 
 
 [copy.] 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 I beg to call your attention to a singular attempt which has 
 been made to disprove a statement of yours, made, I think, at a 
 meeting of the Society for Propagating the Gospel, at Boston, viz. 
 " That no Churchman, who understood what are called High Church 
 principles, has ever become a Romanist."
 
 24 
 
 The " Christian Observer" for last month, having commented upon 
 your statement in his own way, proceeds to attempt what is certainly 
 far better, if it were practicable — to refute it by reference to facts. 
 He asserts that the Hon. and Rev- Geo. Spencer, in his account of his 
 conversion, publisned in the [Roman] " Catholic Magazine" for April, 
 has alluded to a Protestant Clergyman, by whose conversation and 
 arguments he was led to become a R,omanistj and that this Clergyman 
 was the late Rev. Thos. Sikes, of Guilsborough, Northants ; whom the, 
 " Christian Observer" proceeds to speak of as an enemy to the Bible, 
 because he was opposed to the Bible Society : which is about as good 
 an argument as if you were to speak of an opponent of the Jesuits* as 
 an enemy of the blessed Lord Jesus. 
 
 To confirm his interpretation of Mr. Spencer's allusion, the " Chris- 
 tian Observer" brings forward a passage from a recent work of the 
 Rev. Di". Nolan ; in which that gentleman asserts that " he has seen a 
 letter written by the Hon and Rev. Mr. Spencer, in which he attributes 
 his conversion to the light let in upon his mind by Mr. Sikes's work on 
 Parochial Communion." 
 
 I have no doubt, my dear Sir, you will agree with me as to the good 
 feeling, good taste, and prudence shewn by these Reverend Gentlemen 
 in attacking a High Churchman of the last generation, who, after 
 passing a long and honoured life, full of mercy and alms-deeds, has been 
 for many years gone to his reward. However, on seeing these state- 
 ments I thought it right to address a line to the Hon. and Rev. Geo. 
 Spencer, who, though he has left the Church of England, is still a 
 Christian Gentleman, and he has put it in my power to state the tw^o 
 following facts from his answer to my letter. 
 
 1. That the Protestant clergyman, who is mentioned as having given 
 him an impression favourable to Romanism, was not the late Rev. 
 Thos. Sikes, but another clergyman of very different sentiments, 
 whose name is stated in Mr. Spencer's letter, but which I shall not 
 make public, as it is enough for me to have contradicted the charge 
 against Mr. Sikes. 
 
 2. That it is impossible for the Rev. Dr. Nolan to have seen a letter 
 of Mr. Spencer's containing such a statement as is there mentioned ; 
 for in fact, although Mr. Spencer possessed a copy of Mr. Sikes's work 
 on Parochial Communion, he never gave it a perusal. 
 
 I presume, after this, till Dr. Nolan at least can produce the letter he 
 professes to have seen, the " Christian Observer" will think it necessary 
 to look further for the High Churchman who has been led, by following 
 out his own principles, to become a Romanist. 
 I am, my dear Sir, 
 
 Your's very faithfully, 
 
 EDW. CHURTON. 
 Crayke Rectory, Dec. 9, 1839. 
 
 * Jesuits style themselves Members of the Society of Jesus. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 [b. PERRING, printer, LEEDS.]
 
 Mih 

 
 > v> 
 
 
 
 
 
 ;^^jf> 
 
 > ->? ■■<: 
 
 «fcl>> 
 
 J.' ^ '; 
 
 i 
 
 •*>'* Ji 
 
 1 
 
 .:>.>L»> 
 
 
 
 
 ^e>>' 
 
 
 >^:3C«*v 
 
 91^^^ 
 
 
 
 ^^-^ 
 
 1 *> 
 
 :> _-» ^»i>. 
 
 T»» j»> ^>& 
 
 '^-T«»>- 
 
 
 
 > ^