The novelties of Romanism, or, Popery refuted by tradition : a sermon, preached in St. Andrew's Church, Manchester

. 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«»>-

> ^