Reasons why I am not a Papist, or, the churchman armed against the novelties, usurpations, and corruptions of the Church of Rome


V

REASONS
W II Y

i AM NOT A PAPIST
. O R

THE CHU|CHMAN ARMED
\ t ,A<S A I T T II E

ES,

. ';r
»'

NOVELTIES, USURPATIONS, AND CORRUPTIONS
V

THE € II U 11 C H OF M E
n r

* ©
REV. N S. RICHARDSON, A. M.

AUTHOH OF “ THE CHURCHXAN’s BKASONS FOl^ HIS FAITH AND PRACTICE,”
** REASONS WHV I AM A CHlTRCHMANf'' “ PASTOR’S APPEAL ON

•CONFIRMATION,” ETC.

^^cti-^ock

;

STANFORD AND SWORDS,
N'O. 139 , Broadway,

1847 .





AtP63K3

REASONS
WHY

I AM NOT A papist:
OR,

THE CHURCHMAN ARMED

AGAINST THE

NOVELTIES, USURPATIONS, AND CORRUPTIONS

o P

THE CHURCH OF ROME.
BY

REV. N S. RICHARDSON, A. M.
AUTHOR OF “ THE CHURCHMAN’S REASONS FOR HIS FAITH AND PRACTICE,”

REASONS WHY I AM A CHURCHMAN,” “ PASTOR’S APPEAL ON
CONFIRMATION,” ETO.

STANFORD AND SWORDS,
No. 139, Broadway.

1847.



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by
STANFORD AND SWORDS,

in the Clerk’s Office of the District Court for the Southern District

of New-York.

JOHN R. m’gOWN, printer,

CVI. FULTON-STREET.

OeaddHied



TO THE MEMBERS

oP THE

0ne Catholic anb Apostolic COjtircl)

OF THE

CREED,
TO ARM THEM AGAINST THE

NOVELTIES, USURPATIONS, AND CORRUPTIONS,

o p

THE ROMISH CHURCH,

THE FOLLOWING PAGES,

ARE RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED,

B Y

THE AUTHOR





REASONS
WHY

I AM NOT A PAPIST.

INTRODUCTION.

The controversy of the last half century, between the Church

in the United States, and the scores of sects, among which she is

steadily urging on her way, has called forth numerous works, of

greater or less value, enabling the inquiring mind to draw the di-

viding line with great distinctness between her and them.

But there is another part of the controversy not so well under-

stood. It is between the Church, and another body, which, of

late years has begun to attract serious attention in this coimtry.

Waning in the old world, she comes among us with strong hopes

and bold pretensions. She claims to be the one only Catholic

Church of Christ. She classes all who differ from her in the same

rank as hopeless heretics and schismatics. Her aims among us

are lofty. She has calculated, long since, the greatness in every

aspect, physical, numerical, commercial, literary, and religious, of

this new and growing Republic. She is fearful, lest, with the

spread of the English language and influence, that here as at home.



r

«

Viii INTRODUCTION

the English Church rear her gigantic form. She is busy like the

great masters of antiquity, in laboring, not for the present, but a

future age. She is at work every where, planting Schools and

Colleges, erecting Churches and Cathedrals, and sending her well

trained missionaries of every grade, throughout the length and

breadth of the land.

She presents her system before the public in its most attractive

form. She says nothing respecting many of the peculiar and more

repulsive doctrines of Romanism, and lavishes her strength upon

matters more defensible, but of less importance. She boasts of

her antiquity, her unity, her Catholicity, her ultimate supremacy.

She trumpets every numerical accession to her ranks, and points

to the divisions, and the heresies which are springing up around

her. She has something in her system for every body to do, some

place for every peculiarity of the human mind. She has self-denial

for the devotee, enterprise for the enthusiast, romance for the

sickly sentimentalist, learning for the pedant, stern authority for

the timid, sympathy for the disappointed, promotion for the aspir-

ing, and sophistry for the inquiring. And under one or another

of these forms, some restless spirits in the Church have already

been ensnared.

With this new force in the field, the Church has now, and for

some time to come, to contend. The ground, which has been so

ably contested in England since the Reformation, has all to be gone

over again, on our owu shores. The armor which those old giants

wore, Barrow, and Bull, and Hall, and Jewell, and Chillingworth,

must be burnished up, and put on anew. In England and in our

own country, the work has been already begun, and well begun,

and there are scores of valiant sons of the Church, of stout heart

and strong arm ready for the work.

To assist, however feebly, in doing that, which he looks to see

done by other and abler pens, the present writer, sends the follow-



INTRODUCTION. ix

ing pages abroad, commending them to the blessing of Almighty-

God.

Did the cause of truth permit, he would have preferred, to

search the past history of the Romish Church, for bright names

and bright deeds, and to hold them up to admiration. But he

believes that the Romish Church, in the language of one of the

most learned men of ancient or modern times, is a “ corrupt and,

despotic system," corrupt in doctrine, and despotic in government,

and he looks for a thorough Reformation of that whole system, not

according to the whims and caprice of private fancy, but according

to the rules of the Ancient, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. He

has no feelings of unkinduess, or of prejudice, against the Romish

Church. He has read the ablest defences of their own system,

and has found weakness, where he looked for more strength, and

extravagant boasting, where he sees no room for aught, but silence,

or acknowledged fault.

In his judgment, there is nothing to fear, but every thing to

hope for, to the Church, in that free and full examination of the

great question, which must be met, ‘‘ What, and where is the true

Catholic Church of Christ ? ” Only let the discussion be marked,

by that deep humility, that earnest love of the truth, which be-

comes the cause.

The present writer, pleads for the same impartial examination

of the following pages, with which they are indited, and implores

the Spirit of Grace, to guide both writer and reader into all truth.



1

i



I.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREMACY OF
THE POPE IS ANTI-SCRIPTURAL.

The doctime of the Romish Church is, that Peter was

the Prince, or Chief of the Apostles, the Supreme

Head of Christ’s Church upon earth, and the Vicar, or

Representative, of Jesus Christ; and that the Pope

of Rome is in all these things his successor.

The formal language of the doctrine is—“ I prom-

ise to swear true obedience to the Pope of Rome,

who is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the

Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.”
^

We affirm of this doctrine that it is Anti-Scrip-
tural.

1. It is contrary to the spirit of the Holy Scrip-

tures.

We read that once, as the Apostles were on their
way to Capernaum, “ they had been disputing among

themselves who should be greatest 1 And Jesus sat

down and called the twelve unto Him, and saith unto

them, if any man desire to be firsts the same shall be

last of all and servant of all.”

Such was the manner ^ in which our Saviour met

this question.

* Creed of Pius IV. Art. 23. ’ Mark ix. 33—35.



8 REASONS WHY

2. But the doctrine that Peter was Prince of the

Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, is contradicted by

the Scriptural history of the Apostles themselves.

Not long after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, we
find the College of the Apostles assembled, to appoint

one to fill the place of the traitor Judas. Peter, uni-

versally acknowledged, from his natural temperament

of character, to have been conspicuous among the
Apostles

;
the first to walk on the water to go to

Jesus, and the first to sink
;
the first to declare that

he would go with him to prison and to death, and the

first to curse and swear that he did not know such a
person as Jesus; he also now at this meeting of the
Apostles appears taking an active pait. But when
the official action of the Apostles is recorded, Peter’s

name is lost in the equal part which each of the
Apostles there sustained. It was “ they ” who ap-
pointed two, and “ they gave forth their lots.” ^

A little while after we find the Apostles together
again, engaged in the performance of official action.

News had reached Jerusalem that Philip, one of
the deacons, had preached the Gospel with success at

Samaria. And we read that “ they (the Apostles)
sent unto them Peter and John,” who went down, and
laid hands on the disciples whom Philip had baptized.
So far from Peter being regarded as Prince of the

Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, he appears be-

fore us, yielding obedience to the Apostles, and sub-

ject to their direction.^

A little while after we find another event in the
AV

* Acts i. 15—26. ’ Acts viii. 14.



am not a papist. &

history of the Apostles, still more
indicative upon the

point in question.

It was at Jerusalem, where a
Council was called,

usually regarded as tlie
“ First Council,” to decide

upon a question, then troubling the
infant Church,

concerning Circumcision.

At that Council, Peter and Paul aud
Barnabas,

all appear as Counsellors, but when,
finally, the deci-

sion of the Council was judicially
declared, it was

done, not at the mouth of Peter, but of
James, first

Bishop of Jerusalem. And the decree went
forth,

not in the name of Peter, but
“ The Apostles and

Elders (Presbyters) and brethren.
Greeting.” ^

The history of that Council throws light
also, not

only upon the question of priority of
rank and power,

but it shows also, that if any Church
deserved the

name of “ Mother and Mistress of all
Churches,” it

must be that of Jerusalem, and not of
Rome.

Subsequently, we have a large number of Epistles,

written by the Apostles, Peter and Paul.
Some of

them written under such circumstances,
that it is

morally impossible no allusion should have
been made

to such exalted claims of Peter and
of Rome, if any

such existed. Paul, in his long
Epistle to the Church

at Rome, writes with great plainness
and great par-

ticularity : and yet he makes no allusion to
Peter as

having any connection whatever with
that Church.

The Scriptures nowhere give us any such
intimation,

and many of the most learned men, are of
opinion,

that Peter never had any connection with
the Church

' Acts XV. 1—23.
1
-



10 REASONS WHY

at Rome at all. Throughout the whole of PauFs
fourteen Epistles, there is not the slightest allusion to

any such priority of power in Peter, or of rank in the

Romish Church.

St. Peter also himself has left us two Epistles.

And yet in them we have the same impressive fact,
the same unaccountable omissions of any peculiar

claim, due to himself, or to the Church at Rome.

In one of Paul’s Epistles, we do find him indeed
alluding to Peter, but is it as to a Prince among the

Apostles, as to a Vicar of Jesus Christ] He says
to the Galatians that he withstood Peter at Antioch,

“ to hisface because he luas to he blamedf for insisting
upon the Circumcision of the Gentiles, conduct not

corresponding with the doctrine that Peter was the

Vicar of Jesus Christ and Prince of the Apostles
;
a

doctrine, of which the Apostles knew nothing, and
the origin and rise of which, we find recorded in the
subsequent history of the Church, together with the

causes thereof.

3. But what Scriptural authority do the Romanists

pretend to urge in justification of the Papal Su-

premacy.

Passing by those instances in which our blessed

Saviour noticed Peter, or in which his name appears
in distinction from the other Apostles, all of which

prove nothing to the purpose, since other of the Apos-

tles, as John, for instance, was peculiarly honored by

the Saviour, who was particularly loved, and to whom
he left the care of Mary his Mother, passing by these
allusions to Peter, the authority mainly relied upon

by the Romanists, is the following: “When Jesus



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 11

had come into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, He
asked his disciples (not Peter only) whom do men say
that I, the Son of Man am % ” And they repeated the
various opinions abroad concerning Him. He now
addresses them collectively. “ But whom say ye that I
am % And Simon Peter answered and said, thou art the

Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answer-
ed and said unto him, blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona,

for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but

my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto
thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will

build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre-
vail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of

the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shall

bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatso-

ever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in

heaven.” ^

Such is the Scriptural narration on which the Ro-

manists have erected their superstructure. Let us

give to it a brief examination.

Granting, therefore, for the present, to the Ro-

manists all that they claim in respect to this passage,

that Peter as an individual was “ this rock,” and that

to him were given the keys as a symbol of power in

the Church, yet by an examination of other corres-

ponding Scriptures on this subject, we shall see how

slight is the foundation for such a superstructure.

For subsequently, and after Jesus Christ’s resur-

ection from the grave, by which, we are taught, he ob-

tained mediatorial power over all things “ in heaven,

and in earth, and under the earth,” ^ we find Him con-
^ Matt xvi. 13—19. ’ Phil. ii. 8

—

11.



12 REASONS WHY

feriing this very same power, claimed for Peter, on all

the Apostles alike. “ Whosesoever sins ye remit, they

are remitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are

retained.” ^

And so far from Peter being the chief foundation
of the Church, we are taught expressly that all the
Apostles sustain the same relation. For says St.

Paul, “Ye are built upon the foundation of Apostles
and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself (not Peter) being

the chief corner-stone.” ^

And St. John, afterwards, as he in vision was per-
mitted to gaze upon the Church triumphant in glory,

saw engraved upon the foundations the names of all

the twelve Apostles of the Lamb, showing that that

construction which the Romanists put upon the pas-

sage in question, in reality is unauthorized.

But even here, little as the Romish argument is

strengthened by this concession, we have granted
quite too much. For who, or what, is “ this rock,”

upon which Christ will build his Church'? Was it
Peter as an individual '? or was it the Apostles col-

lectively, to whom the Saviour addressed his inquiry,
and in whose name Peter spake '? Or was it the con-

fession of the true faith by Peter, “ Thou art the

Christ, the Son of the living God 1 ” This latter
interpretation is most conformable to Scriptural usage.

In the sacred writings, the name is often given to cer-

tain places and things, of those things to which they

stand related. Thus to a certain place where Jacob

was travelling, the name of Mahanaim was given,

* John XX. 23. ’ Eph. ii. 20.



1 AM NOT A PAPIST. 13

signifying two hosts, because that there the hosts or

angels of God appeared to him. So also Bethel was
called Elbethel, or God of Bethel, because God there
appeared to the Patriarch.

So also several of the ancient Fathers will have
“ this rock” to have been, not Peter as an individual,

but the confession of the true faith, “ Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God,” to which Peter

had borne witness.

Justin Martyr says, “ Christ bestowed upon Simon

the name of Peter, because, by the revelation of the

Father, he confessed him to be the Son of God.” ^

Athanasius, Cyril, Jerome and Augustine, all pre-

fer this interpretation. Augustine is very explicit

:

he says, “ The Church is founded upon a Rock,
whence Peter derived his name. For the rock was

not so called from Peter, but Peter from the rock.

For the Rock was Christ, upon which foun-
dation Peter himself was built, inasmuch as it is said,
‘ other foundation can no man lay than what is laid,
that is Jesus Christ.’

But we are not yet through with the Romish diffi-
culty upon this passage. For, even admitting that by
“ this rock,” Peter as an individual was meant, and
that to him, and him alone, was given such supreme
power, it would still remain to be proved, that that

same degree of power descended to an order of men,
as successors of Peter, (which could not be proved,)

* Jus. Dial. Cum. Tiy. p. 255.
* See Athan. uuum esse Christ, Orat. Oper. pp. 519, 520.

Cyr. Col. vi. p. 54, and xi. p. 93. Hier. Com. in Matt. xvi. 18.
August. Ex. in Evan. Johan. Oper. vol. ix. p. 206.



14 REASONS WHY

and then that this order of men was to he found in the

Bishops of the Romish See. But here is an assem-

blage of difficulties. For by the most learned men it

is questioned whether Peter was even one of the

founders of the Church at Rome. Irenaeus says,

that the two blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, were

the two co-founders of the Church at Rome, and that

they delivered the Episcopate of it to Linus, mention-

ed by St. Paul as being a Christian in the Romish

Church about the year a. d. 65, in his second Epistle

to Timothy.i The Apostolic Constitutions declare

that it was by Paul (not Peter) that Linus was ap-

pointed first Bishop of Rome?

And Eusebius names Clemens third Bishop of

Rome, and reckons before him Linus and Anacletus.®

And this agrees with the history of the Church of

Rome, as found in the Holy Scriptures, where the

name of Paul, but not Peter, appears before us as of

one entering personally into its condition. That Peter

was ever Bishop of Rome, in person, there is no satis-

factory reason to believe. His personal labors in con-

nection with the Church at Jerusalem and Alexandria,

are far better attested, and each of those Churches

might institute far stronger claims for the honor of

succession from him, than the Church of Rome."*

Such are some of the difficulties in the way of

sustaining the doctrine of the Papal Supremacy, from

this passage of Holy Writ.

* 2 Tim. iv. 21.

^ Cons. Apos. lib. vii. c. 4t>.

* Eus. iii. 4. 13. 15.

* See Burton’s Lectures Ecc. Hist, first three Cen. Lee.
x.



*1 AM NOT A PAPIST. 15

We have seen, in our previous pages, that to each
of the Apostles were given equal degrees of power in

tho Church of Christ. That the inspired page pre-

sents them before us in the exercise of such power,

and hence we conclude that the doctrine of the Papal

Supremacy is Anti-Scriptural.

II.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF THE PAPAL SUPREMACY
IS ANTI-PRIMITIVE.

The doctrine of the Romish Church, as expressed by

the Lateran Council, is as follows :

—

“ We distinctly charge them (the Church of the
Greeks) to submit themselves, like obedient children,

to the Holy Church of Rome their Mother. . . . But
if one shall be disposed to do any thing of the sort,

(viz. withhold obedience,) let him be smitten with the

Bword of excommunication, and be deposed from all

office and benefice.^

And again

—

“ We decree that the Holy Apostolic See, and the
Roman pontiff, has a primacy over the whole world,
and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor

of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and is the

^ IV. Can. IV. Lateran Council.

i

i

I



16 REA SONS WHY

true Vicar of Christ, and Head of the whole Church,
and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that

to him, in the person of the blessed Peter, our

Lord Jesus Christ has committed full power of
feedingy ruling and governing the universal Church.
‘ Pascendi, regendi ac gubernandi universalem Ec-

clesiam.’ ” ^

The same claim is advanced in the Creed of Pope
Pius IV., and in the Bulls of many other Popes, in
language even more exceptionable.

We are to show now that this doctrine of Papal
Supremacy is Anti-Primitive.

Thus St. Cyprian says—The other Apostles were
indeed that which Peter was, endowed with equal con-

sortship of honor and power. And again

—

“ Although our Lord giveth to all the Apostles

after his resurrection an equal power and saith as the

Father sent me, so send I you.”^

St. Chrysostom says—“ St. Paul sheweth that each
Apostle did enjoy equal dignity.”^

St. Cyril says that “ Peter and John were equal in

honor one to another.”^

St. Jerome says “the strength of the Church is

equally settled upon them.” ^

And Isidore, still later, says, “ The other Apostles
did receive an equal share of honor and power, who
also being dispersed in the whole world, did preach

the Gospel, and to whom departing, the Bishops did

* Council of Florence, Sess. xxv. a. d. 1438.

* Cypr. de Un. Eccl. * Chrys. in Gal. ii. 8.

^ Act. Con. Eph. p. 1, p. 209. ® Hier. in Jovin, 1, 14.



I AM NOT A PAPI ST. 17

succeed, who are constituted, through the whole world

in the Sees of the Apostles.” ^

And as Jerome says again, “ Wherever a Bishop
be, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, at Constanti-

nople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he

is of the same worth, and of the same priesthood, the

force of wealth, and lowness of poverty, doth not ren-

der a Bishop more high or more low, for that all of

them are Successors of the Apostles.” ^

Origin says, “ Are the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven, given by the Lord to Peter alone, and shall

none other of the blessed ones receive them 1 But if

this I will give thee, the keys of the Kingdom of Hea-
ven be common, how also are not all the things com-
mon, which were spoken before, or are added as

spoken to Peter.” ^

And St. Jerome says—“ All the Apostles did re-
ceive the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”^

But this equal authority of all the Apostles is de-

clared to us not only by the Fathers individually. The
early Councils in legislating for the Church authori-

tatively teach the same thing.

The Council of Nice ordered—“ Let the ancient
customs prevail, that are in Egypt, Lybia, and Penta-

polis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over

them all, forasmuch also, as the Bishop of Rome hath
the like custom. In like manner in Antioch, and

all other Provinces, let the privileges be preseiTed

to the Churches.” ^

^ Isicl. Hisp. de Off. ii. 5. ® Jer. ad Evag. Ep. 85.
’ Origin, in Matt. xvi. * Hier. in Jov. i. 14.

‘ 1 Con. at Nice, Can. vi., a. d. 315.



18 REASONS WHY

And in like manner also at the first Council of
Constantinople, we have the follo\ving enactment

:

“ Let not the Bishops go out of their Diocese,
(patriarchate) to Churches beyond their bounds, nor
cause a confusion of Churches, but, according to the
Canons let the Bishop of Alexandria order the affairs
in Egypt only, and the Bishops of the East in the East
only, saving the dignity of the Church in Antioch,
expressed in the Canons of Nice,” &cJ

Such is only a specimen of the language of the
Fathers and Councils concerning the equal authority,
dignity, and power of the Apostles and their suc-
cessors. Language cannot be stronger, or more
explicit.

True it is that many of the early writers speak
of St. Peter in extravagant eulogy. But then it is
easy to cull out also detached passages from them, in
which they speak of other of the Apostles with equal
respect.

Clement of Rome calls St. James, our Lord’s
brother, “ the Bishop of Bishops.’’-^ Hesychius, Pres-
byter of Jerusalem, calls him the Chief Captain of
the new Jerusalem, the Captain of Priests, the Prince
of the Apostles, the top among the heads, &c.*

Hesychius calleth St. Andrew “ the first-born of
the Apostolic choir, the first settled pillar of the

Church, the Peter before Peter, the foundation of the
foundation,” &c.

St. Chrysostom says of St. John,^ that he was “ a

* 1 Con. at Cons. Canon II. a. d. 381.
’ Clem. Recog. i. 68. * Hes. Apud Phot, Cod. 275.
* Hes. Apud Phot. Cod. 269.



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 19

pillar of the Churches through the world, he that had

the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”^

St. Chrysostom says of St. Paul

:

“ He was the tongue, the teacher, the Apostle of

the world. He had the whole world put into his
hands, and took care thereof, and had committed to

him all men dwelling upon earth.” And again

—

“ He was better than all men, greater than the
Apostles, and surpassing them all.” And again

—

“ None was greater than he, yea, none equal to

him.” 2

We do not deny that, at a later day, we begin
to find language different from this. The Bishop of

Rome, not on account of his pretended descent from

St. Peter, or any legislation of the Church Catholic,

but solely from other temporal and worldly reasons,

as might be easily shown, began to usurp dominion

and power. His See was one of great wealth and

dignity. He had around him great numbers of learned
influential Presbyters. He was able to afford relief
and protection to the early Churches.

The civil condition of the world facilitated and

encouraged this aggrandizement of the Bishop of

Rome. The waning powers of the Emperors, the

civil commotions, led the civil rulers to seek assistance

from a power growing up among them, possessing

exhaustless wealth and unbounded influence over the

people. Such supplies were not granted without

con’esponding concessions. The unity of the civil

* Chrys. in John i. 1.

® Vide Chrys. in Rom. xvi. 24 . I Cor. ix. 2. 2 Tim. iii. 15,
&c.



20 REASONS WHY

government was being broken to fragments. The
unity of Ecclesiastical government was becoming

more consolidated and powerful, and at length we
have before us, as the result of worldly causes per-

fectly intelligible, the spectacle of a great body, partly

civil and partly ecclesiastical, bearing the “ two

swords,” fomenting commotions, conspiracies, rebel-

lions, and insurrections against princes, deposing

kings, and all this by Divine right, as the successors

of one of the Apostles. Such is the history of the

origin of the Papal supremacy, and enough has been

said to show that it is beyond all doubt anti-primitive.

And this prepares the way for our next position.

III.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE PAPAL CHURCH CLAIMS THAT THE
POPE HAS POWER TO DEPOSE CIVIL RULERS, AND
ABSOLVE THEIR SUBJECTS FROM CIVIL ALLEGI-
ANCE.

Whatever may be the opinions of individual Roman-

ists, and however reluctant to acknowledge that such

is the real doctrine of that Church, we are able to

show that this power has been affirmed in Councils,

which Rome regards as general, and the student of
past history knows in what language the record of

that claim has been written.



1 AM NOT A PAPIST. 21

Of the fourth Lateran Council we have the fol-
lowing Canon :

“ We excommunicate and anathematize every
heresy which exalteth itself against this holy orthodox

and Catholic Faith which we have set forth above,
condemning all heretics by whatsoever names they

may be reckoned. . . . Let such persons, when con-
demned, be left to the secular powers, who may be
present, or to their officers, to be punished in a fitting

manner And let the secular powers^ whatsoever

offices they may hold, be induced, and admonished,
and, if need be, compelled by ecclesiastical censure

.... that, to the utmost of their power, they will

strive to exterminate from the lands under their juris-

diction, all heretics who shall be denounced by the
Church. . . . But if any temporal lord being required

and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to

cleanse his country of this heretical filth, let him be

bound by the chain of excommunication, by the

Metropolitan and the other co-provincial Bishops.

And if he shall refuse to make satisfaction within a
year, let this be signified to the Supreme Pontiff (or

Pope,) that forthwith he may declare his vassals to be
absolved from all their fidelity to him, and may ex-
pose his land to be occupied by Catholics, who, having

exterminated the heretics, may without contradiction
possess it, and preserve it in the purity of the Faith.

We have quoted from the Canons of this famous
Lateran Council at length, that the reader may be
able to put his own construction upon it. The Creed
of Pope Pius IV., and the Canons of the Third

^ IV Lat. Coun. Canon hi. a. d. 1215.



22 REASONS W BY

Lateral! Council breathe the same spirit. Will the
reader examine the above language. First, heretics

are to be handed over to the secular powers, who are
to be induced, admonished, and, if need be, com^

felled by ecclesiastical censure to exterminate from

their lands all heretics. But if they neglect to do

this, as a last resort, the Pope may absolve the vassals
or subjects of such secular powers from all allegiance

to them, and expose their land to be occupied by

Catholics, who, having exterminated the heretics, are

without contradiction to possess it.

Such is the language, and such the spirit of the

Church of Rome. Has the language been a dead

letter % Let the past history of Europe answer. Let

the scenes of carnage, and the rivers of blood tell

their story ! In A. D. 1210, John, King of England,

was anathematized and deposed by Innocent III.

The Emperor Henry IV. was twice anathematized

and deposed by Gregory VII. In A. D. 1245, the

Emperor Frederick II. was anathematized and de-

posed by Innocent IV. In A. D. 1283, Peter, King

of Arragon, was anathematized and deposed by

Martin IV. In A. D. 1322, Matthew, Duke of Milan,
was anathematized and deposed by Urban V. In A.

D. 1538, Henry VIII. King of England, was anathe-

matized and deposed by Paul III. In A. D. 1583,

Henry of France was anathematized and deposed by

Sixtus V. In A. D. 1591, Henry IV. of France was

anathematized and deposed by Clement VII. In A.

D. 1569, Elizabeth, Queen of England, was deposed

by Pius V. In A. D. 1643, Charles I., in Ireland,

was deposed by Urban VIII. In A. D. 1729, George



1 AM NOT A PAPIST. 23

IL, King of England, was deposed
by Benedict

XIII.

Is it necessary to adduce other
instances 1 Shall

we enter into all the details by which these
sanguinary

measures were carried out or attempted ]

Have those claims to depose princes and absolve

their subjects from allegiance, been
abandoned to this

day ] Have the Canons of the Lateran Council
been

abrogated ] When and where ]

Even within the present century, at the seculariza-

tion of certain German Churches and
Chapters in

1803, by the “ Diet of Augsburg,”
we find Pope Pius

VII. using the following language of
complaint

“ To be sure we are fallen into such calamitous

times, that it is not possihle
for the spouse of Jesus

Christ to practice^ nor even expedient
for her to recall

her holy maxims of just rigor against
the enemies of

the Faith; but, although she
cannot exercise her

Right of deposing heretics from their
principalities,

and declaring them deprived of
their property, yet

can she for one moment allow that
they should rob

her of her property to aggrandize
and enrich them-

selves ] What an object of derision
would she be-

come to heretics, who, in mocking
her grief, would

say, that they had found out a
way of making her

tolerant /
” *

And in the Romish College of Maynooth,
sup-

ported in part even at this day, by
bounties from the

British Parliament, the candidates
for orders are

taught as follows from their text-book
:

° The Church retains its power over all
heretics,

» “ E88. His. Temp, des Pap.,” tom. 2. p.
320.



24 REASONS WHY

apostates and schismatics, though they may no longer
belong to its body, as a general may have a right to
inflict punishment on a deserter, though his name is
no longer on the muster-roll of the army.” ^

Besides, what the present spirit of the Romish
Church is, may be partly gathered from the “ oath ”

which all Bishops of that Church are required to take
at their consecration. From that oath I make the
following extract ;

“ The Apostolical commands, I will observe with
all my power, and cause them to be observed by
others, the Roman Papacy, and the royalties of St.
Peter I will aid and defend against every man

j

heretics^ schismatics, and rebels to the Pope, or his

successors, I will, to the extent of my power, persecute
and impugn,’^ ^ — “pro posse, persequar et im-
pugnabo.”

We leave now with the reader, the subject of the
claims of civil power by the Pope of Rome. True

it is, indeed, that certain other civil governments

have supported the religion of their own realms by

stringent laws
;
but for a Christian ruler, in virtue of

his spiritual power, to wage a war of universal exter-

mination against all whom he may brand as heretics,
not only in his own lands, but in all lands, this is

an excess and a refinement of cruelty in which the

Supreme Pontiff stands entirely alone.

Against such excessive, such high-handed tyranny,

we will not mock our readers by urging arguments.

' Dig. Pari. Evidence, Part I., p. 125.

’ Greg. Dec. lib. iii. tit. 24, Cap. 4.



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 25

It is enough to show, as we have already done, that
such tyrannical power has been solemnly claimed,

has been exercised, and has never been abandoned.^

IV.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH CHURCH IS GUILTY OF GROSS
IDOLATUr IN HER WORSHIP.

If there are individuals in that Church who are capa-
ble of making those wire-drawn distinctions, between

Latria and Dulia, to which they resort, in respect to

religious worship, and who are not guilty of this aw-
ful sin, yet we cannot avoid the conclusion, that the
language^ which the Romish Church authorizes or

tolerates, in her worship, in its natural and ordinary

sense is the language of the grossest Idolatry.

We quote first, from Books of Devotion, publicly

‘ The “ oath of secrecy ” taken by the Jesuits, is as follows.

It deserves attention.

I do further declare, that Iwill help, assist, and advise, all,
or any, of his Holiness's agents, in any place where I shall he, in
England, Scotland, Ireland, or in any other kingdom or territory

I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Prot
estant's doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended powers, regai.

OR otherwise.”—See Archbp. Usher’s Coll.



26 REASONS WHf

authorized and commonly used, in which idolatrous

worship is paid to the Virgin Mary. We first select
from the Psalter of Bonaventure published at Rome
under the auspices of Pope Sextus V. and between

A. D. 1476 and 1823 passing, it is said, through 28

Editions

—

“ Blessed is the man that loveth thy name, Oh Holy
Virgin Mary, thy grace shall strengthen his soul.” ^

“We praise thee the Mother of God—we acknow-
ledge thee Mary the Virgin.” ^

“To thee the whole angelic creation, with never-
ceasing voice cry aloud,” ^

“ Holy, Holy, Holy, Mary the Parent of God
Mother and Virgin.” “ Thou, with thy Son, sittest at

the right hand of the Father.”^

“ Oh Lady save thy people, that we may be par-
takers of thy Son’s inheritance.”^

“ Vouchsafe Oh sweet Mary to keep us now and
forever without sin.” ®

“ In thee do we hope. Oh sweet Mary, do thou
defend us eternally.”

We quote next from the “ Glories of Mary,” by
Alphonso Liguori, and approved by Pope Pius VII.
A. D. 1803.

“ Dispensatrix of the Divine Grace, you save whom
you please, to you then I commit myself that the ene-

my may not destroy me.” ®
“ We, Holy Virgin, hope for grace and Salvation,

from you, and since you need but say the word,

* Psalm i. ’ The “ Te Deum.” » Ibid. « Ibid.
“Ibid. “Ibid. ’Ibid. “P. 100.



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 27

Oh do so, and you shall be heard, and we shall be
saved.” 1

The following extracts, are made from a long
prayer used by the “ Confraternity of the Holy Scap-

ular” in Ireland.

“ Oh Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel, dearest
Mother of God, Queen of Angels, Advocate ofSinners,
Comforter of the afflicted, extend. Oh glorious Virgin,
the ear of your pity, to the prayers of me your most
humble servant. Purify my heart. Oh immaculate
Virgin, from every sin, take away and banish from

me all, every thing, that can offend your chaste eye,”
&c. &c.

In the Book of Devotions, usually known as ” De-
votions to the Sacred Heart of Mary”—the following
are specimens, of blasphemous addresses to the Virgin

Mary.

” Oh Holy Mother of God, Glorious Queen of
Heaven and Earth ! I choose thee this day for my
Mother, my Queen, and my Advocate at the Throne,
of thy divine Son.” 2

” Oh Holy Mary, our Sovereign Queen, as God
the Son has endowed thee with so much knowledge

and charity, that it enlightens all Heaven, so in the

hour of our death, illustrate and strengthen our souls,

with the knowledge of the true Faith, that they be not

perverted by error or pernicious ignorance.”^

We close this list of extracts, to which hundreds
might be added, by selecting two or three from a Book

» P. 137. *P. 201. •P. 212.



28 REASONS WHY

of Devotions called the “ Month ofMary,” and approved

by an American Bishop.^
“ Obtain for me, Oh Glorious Virgin, a sincere

conversion
;
strength and resolution in the hour of

trial, and the Grace of final perseverance.” ^

“ Oh Sacred Refuge of Sinners ! How many
Sinners hast thou rescued from the power of Hell

!

How many hast thou brought over to penance and
change of life.” ^

“ Oh amiable and powerful Mother ! Graciously
assist us and rescue us froin all misery and affliction.

Protect the Church of thy Son, that her enemies may
not prevail over her.”

Disguise it as the Romanists may, such language

is nothing more or less than that homage and worship

paid to a poor, helpless, ignorant creature, which be-

longs to the Supreme Majesty of Heaven. For it

implies, the possession by the Virgin Mary of all the

attributes and perfections of the Deity. It places her

with the Son on the Throne of God at the right hand
of the Father on high.

How different from all this is the manner, in which
our blessed Lord, once spoke of his mother. It was

told him, on one occasion, that his mother and brethren

were without desiring to speak with Him. He replied,
“ Who is my mother, and who are my brethren 1” And
He stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and
said, “ Behold my mother and my brethren.” ^

If it were necessary to sustain the charge further,

*Bp. Francis Patrick Kenrick.

•P.72. • P.153. « P.162. • Matt. xii. 49 and 50.



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 29

of Idolatry, against the Church ofRome, we would show

in what manner, language has been employed by her,
.

concerning, and addressed to, the Pope of Rome.

The Cardinal Bellarmine, in attempting to exalt

the power of the Pope, as being above the Church,

aims to prove, that all the names which in the Scrip-

tures are given to Jesus Christ, are given to the Pope.

So that his work is an effort to fasten upon the Church

of Rome the very charge which we are sustaining.

And he then goes on to prove that Papists have ac-

tually given to the Pope those divine names and titles

by which the Divinity is proved. We quote briefly
from his work, De Cone, et Eccl. Book ii. Ch, 17.

“ Thou art the Shepherd, thou art the Physician,

finally thou art another God upon earth.”

“ W^e acknowledge the Supremacy of the Holy

Father the Lord God the Pope, and he is Peter’s

successor in the Chair,”

—

“ We are bound to believe that Christ’s Vicar, our
Lord God the Pope, can absolve all men (heretics

excepted) and has given the like power to all his in-

ferior Clergy.”

Other epithets have been given him, as
“ The Sa-

viour that was to come,” as the “ Lord’s Christ,” and

others of equal profanity. At the tenth Session of the

Fifth Lateran Council in A. D. 1515, the following

address was made to Pope Leo X.

—

“ Seize therefore the two edged sword of divine

POWER deliv'ered unto thee. . . . for all power is given

UNTO thee, in HeAV'EN AND ON EaRTH.
’ ^

Lab. et Cos. Cone. tom. xiv. p . 271.



30 REASONS WHY

We deem it unnecessary, to detain the reader far-
‘ther, to prove that the charge of gross ldolati*y, lies

against the Romish Church.

V.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH CHURCH DEPRIVES HER MEM
BERS, OF ONE HALF THE HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE
LORD’S SUPPER.

Her language is

—

if any shall say, that, by the command of God,
or the necessity of salvation, all and sundry the faithful

of Christ, ought to receive both kinds of the most Holy

Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be anathema.”
“ If any shall deny, that whole and entire Christ,

the Fountain and Author of all grace, is received under

the one kind of bread, because as some falsely assert,

he is not received under both kinds, according to

Christ’s institution, let him be accursed.” ^

Thus does this Church not only deprive her mem-
bers of an important part of the most comfortable

Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but she has heaped

' Council of Trent, Sees. XXL Can. I. and III.



1 AM NOT A TAPlST. 31

Vengeance upon her wrongs by inflicting her
hoi rid

curses upon the heads of all those, who presume to

differ from her.

Many of the earlier Fathers of the Church, many

of the learned Doctors and Popes even of her
own

Church, are among the number whom she thus

anathematizes.

For among the early corruptions in Christian doc-

trine, growing out of the prevalence of a false philos-

ophy, Were those respecting this Holy Sacrament, such

as giving water, instead of wine—and giving the bread
and wine together, instead of separately as in the in-

stitution. And among others, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose,

also the Popes Julius, Leo I., and Gelasius, condemn

in the strongest manner, all such innovations. In
what

stronger language of condemnation would they have

spoken of the more modern but important corruption,

of witholding entirely from the people, the
blessed

Sacrament of the Blood of Christ.

This grievous error is not however to be seen in

its true light in the works of the early Fathers
and

writers. But we must go back to the words and in-

tentions of Him who first instituted the Sacrament.

We read that,
“ Jesus took bread and blessed and brake it, and

gave it to the disciples, and said, take eat, this is my

body. And He took the cup and gave thanks, and

gave it to them, saying. Drink ye all of this, for

this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed

for many, for the remission of sins.”
^

* Matt. xxvi. 26—29,



32 REASONS WHY

And that the Apostolic Churches did without doubt
obey the Saviour’s command, in this particular, we
learn from the Exhortation of St. Paul to the Church

at Corinth, in which after reproving certain abuses,

he says,
“ But let a man examine himself, and so let him

eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” ^

And if the exhortation of our Saviour, as given by
St. John, concerning the eating Christ’s body, and

drinking his blood, is to be understood of this Holy

Sacrament, (as the Romanists themselves contend,)

then the drinking of the cup, is as indispensable to

the Christian life, as the eating of the bread, for the

language is—“ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
man and drink his blood ye have no life in you.”^

Indeed no Romish eiTor, admits less defence than

this. It is witnessed against, by the Universal

Churcli for more than a thousand years. It is con-

demned by all the Ancient Liturgies and Offices, East-

ern and Western. All the Ancient Fathers, without

exception, bear witness to this Holy Sacrament, as

being given to all in both kinds. Not, until we come
down to the eleventh or twelfth century, do we find
this corruption, among others, creeping into the Latin

Church.

Surely, so late an innovation, by one branch of

the Church, cannot make void, the express institution
and command of Jesus Christ, the Great Head of the
Church, and the unanimous consent of the Church

Universal, for^more than a thousand years.

* 1 Cor. xi. 28. “John vi. 48—58.



AM NOT A PAPIST.

VL

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH CHURCH TEACHES A TRANSUB-
STANTIATION, OR CHANGE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE ELEMENTS OF THE BREAD AND WINE, INTO
THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, IN THE HOLY
SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER.

Thus the Lateran Council declares, that the “bread
and wine through the Divine power, are transubstan-

tiated, the bread into the body, the wine into the

blood.” 1

And the Council of Trent, confirms this error with
an oath thus

—

“ If any shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of

the Eucharist, there remains the substance of the bread

and wine,—and shall deny that wonderful and remark-
able conversion of the whole substance of the bread,

into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine,

into the blood

—

let him be accursed.” 2

It is no part of our present labor to speak of the

nature or blessedness of this Holy Sacrament. We are
only concerned to prove, that the Romish Church, in

maintaining that the substance of the bread and wine

is changed at the consecration, is guilty of great

error, an error which is the source of some of the

greatest abuses existing in that Church.

nv Later. Coun. Can. I.—A. D. 1215.
“ Coun. of Trent, VI. Seas. Can. I. of the Each. A. D. 1547.



34 REASONS WHY

1. The Holy Scriptures speak of the bread and

wine as still remaining such after the Consecration.

For our blessed Saviour after the supper said, “ I will

not drink henceforth of thisfruit of the vine, until that

day, when I drink it new with you, in my Father’s
Kingdom.” ^

St. Paul speaks of the Consecrated Elements in

similar language.

Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup

unworthily,^' See. ^

And that the substance of the elements remained
unchanged is certain from the nature of the abuses, of

which the Apostle complains,

“ For in eating every one taketh before other his

own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken .

—

What ! Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in V*
And so also, in the History of the Acts of the

Apostles, we read that, upon the first day of the week,
the disciples came together to break bread. ®

Thus then we meet the assertion that our Lord calls
the elements “ his body and his blood,” by replying that

he also calls the cup “ thefruit of the vine," and that the

inspired Apostles still call the elements, the bread and

the wine. The body and the blood, they are sacra-
mentally, and so under this construction, our Saviour’s

words are intelligible to us. But bread and wine, as

called by the Apostles, they are not, if the doctrine of

Transubstantiation is true. So that under the Romish
construction, the Apostles words admit no explanation.

2. That the substance of the bread and wine re-

* Matt. xxvi. 29. ’ 1 Cor. xi. 27. ® Acts xx. 7.



1 AM NOT A PAPIST. 35

main unchanged is apparent to us from the evidence

of our own senses.
Jesus Chiist, if he had chosen, might have changed

the substance of the bread and wine, by the same

power, wiih which he fed the five thousand with a

few loaves and fishes, and made the blind see, and

the lame walk, and the lepers to be cleansed, and the

dead to live. But would He impose on us, the belief,

that the thousands were fed, that the blind did see,

that the lame did walk, that the lepers were cleansed,

when the testimony of all the senses, on which we

relv to convey to us, evidences of miracles, assures

us to the contrary 'I And can the Romish Church,

impose a belief that the substance of the bread and

wine is actually and wonderfully changed, so that

they no longer are bread and wine, when every evi-

dence of the senses assures us to the contrary ]—and
especially when, as we shall see, such a monstrous

contradiction, is opposed to the whole teaching of the

Church for many hundred years ]

3. That such a doctrine was unheard of in the

early Church, is also obvious from the fact, that while

the enemies of Christianity vigorously attacked every

mysterious doctrine of Christ, they evidently knew

nothing of this.

The keen sighted Julian an apostate. Porphyry,

and Celsus, reviled the mysterious doctrines of the

Gospel, such as the Divinity of Christ, the doctrine of

Baptism, and of the Resurrection of the body, and

they were quite too shrewd, not to have hit upon such

a mark of attack, as this, had the least shadow of



36 REASONS WHY

such a doctrine been in existence. The absence of
any allusions to such a doctrine in their pages, is there-

fore a very strong, presumptive argument, that it did

not exist.

4. But we have satisfactory proof, of the sentiment
of the early Church upon this point.

The early Fathers of the Church, call the conse-
crated elements of this Sacrament, signs, sym-

bols, types, antitypes, a commemoration, a representation,

mysteries, and sacraments, when they could have been

none of these, if there is a change of the substance of

the elements. Nay they would then cease to have
even a sacramental character.

Nay more, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Or-
igen, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius,

Gregory Nyssen, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St.

Jerome, and St. Augustin, all speak of the consecrated

elements as still being bread and wine, and evidently

knew nothing of that pretended change ofthe substance

of the elements, which became so fruitful in idolati ous

practices in after days.

Theodoret, for example says,

“ Christ does honor the symbols, with the name of

his body and blood, not changing the nature, but ad-

ding grace to nature,” and again,

“ The mystical symbols, after the sanctification,

do not depart from their oxen nature, for they continue

in theirformer substance,figure andform^ ^

Ephrem of Antioch says, ” The body of Christ,

* Dial. Cont. Eutych. 1 and 2.



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 37

received by the faithful, does not depart from its sen-

sible substance.” ^

Pope Gelasius says, “ The substance of the bread

and wine does not cease to exist.”
^

The early Liturgies remained longer unchanged

and uncoiTupted, in their primitive simplicity, but the

preachers of the Gospel, in order to promote greater

reverence for this Sacrament, began to use unguarded

language respecting it, yet it was not till ten centuries

had gone by, that the terra Transubstantiation, was

adopted. Afterward, the Lateran Council incorporated

it as a doctrine of the Church, and the Council of Trent

set its seal upon the error, by denouncing the curses of

the Church, upon all who presume to call it in question.

VII.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH CHURCH CLAIMS THE RIGHT
TO PROHIBIT THE READING OF THE HOLY SCRIP-
TURES, BY THE PEOPLE.

To what extent, she has exercised this power, we

do not now inquire
;
and how generally the Holy Scrip-

‘ In Photi. Bibli. Cod. 229. * Lib. de duo. Nat. Christ.



38 REASONS WHY

tures are actually circulated and read, in those lands

where that Church holds undisputed sway, is another

question. All that we now propose to prove, is, that
the Romish Church, claims the right to prohibit the

reading ofthe Holy Scriptures entirely, at her discretion^

and, that in so doing, she places herself in opposition

to the Holy Scriptures, and the Catholic Church.

At the Council of Trent, a Committee of the Coun-

cil was appointed, called, the “ Congregation of the

Index,” to decide as to prohibited Books. In the ten

rules, finally adopted, we find the fourth rule as
follows.

—

“ Inasmuch, as it is manifest from experience, that

if the Holy Bible translated into the vulgar tongue, be

indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of

men will cause more evil, than good to arise from it, it

is on this point referred to the judgment of the Bish-

ops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the
priest, or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible,

translated into the vulgar tongue, by Catholic authors,

to those persons, &c., and this permission they must

have in writing”

So recently as A. D. 1828, the Pope in his bull to

the Romanists of Ireland, directs the enforcement

of these regulations of the Council of Trent.

How directly is all this in conflict with the letter
and spirit of God’s Holy Word ! Why is it, that the
Romish Church has found it so necessary, to keep

her members from a diligent perusal of the Sacred

Scriptures 1

The language of our Saviour is, “ Search the Scrip-



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 39

tures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and

they are they which testify of me.” ^

The Prophet Isaiah, bids Israel, “ Seek ye out of

the Book of the Lord, and read.” ^

And so far from this use of the Scriptures being
“ cause of more evil than good,” as the Romish Church

teaches, the Psalmist David, says, “ The entrance of

thy words givetli light, it giveth understanding to the

sim'ple.y ^

So also—“ The Commandment of the Lord is 'pure
enlightening the e'yesT^

In the early Church, the Bereans were commended,

as being more noble than they of Thessalonica, in

that “they searched the Scriptures daily, whether

these things are so.” ^

St. Paul commends Timothy because “ from a
child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith

which is in Christ Jesus.”®

And unto the whole Church at Ephesus, the Apos-
tle writes, addressing all indiscriminately, “ Take

the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit,

which is the word of God.''’
’’’

As we come down to the Church in times immedi-
ately following that of the Apostles, we there find that
the Scriptui’es were distributed throughout all the

Churches, and were generally known and read. In

the early Church, it was not thought necessary to

conceal the Scriptures. They hedged not the way,

^John V. 39. ^Isaiah xxxiv. ]6. ® Ps. cxix. 130.

*Ps. xix. 8. ® Acts xxii. 11. ® 2 Tim. iii. 15. ’Eph. vi. 17.



40 REASONS WHY

to this living fountain with proscriptions and anathemas,

or even “ written permissions.” They earnestly ex-

horted all men to consult these living oracles of God.
They re-echoed the Saviour’s language,—“ Search the
Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life.”

As a specimen of the early Fathers we give the
following brief quotations from Origen.

“ If the Lord Jesus find us employed in such stud-

ies, He will come and partake with us.”
“ The greatest torment of demons, and above all

other pains they endure, is to see men reading the
Word of God.”

“ Let us read the Scriptures of the Old Testament,

let us also read the Books of the New Testament, the
wctfds of the Apostles.”

“ Let us come daily to the wells of the Scriptures,

the waters of the Holy Spirit,—and there draw and
caiTy home a full vessel.” ^

Why it is, that the Romish Church finds it so ne-
cessary to prevent the free circulation of the Scriptures,

we do not now ask. That this blessing, like every
other, may be and is perverted, is unquestionable. But
the Romish Church in withholding this great gift of

God, from those to whom He sent it, is guilty of great
moral wrong, violates the express letter and command
of Holy Writ, and opposes the judgment and practice

of the whole Catholic Church.

* In lib. les. Horn. xx. p. 44. In Nura. Horn, xxvii. p. 378.
In Gen. Horn. x. p. 87. See also the testimony of the Early
Church in Lardner’s Works.



I AM NOT A PAPIST 41

VIII.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH CHURCH ADDS TO THE CANON-
ICAL BOOKS OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, AND AS OF
EQUAL AUTHORITY WITH THEM, CERTAIN APOCRY-
PHAL BOOKS, WHICH WERE NEVER REGARDED AS
CANONICAL, BY THE JEWS TO WHOxM WERECOMMIT-
TED THE ORACLES OF GOD, NOR BY THE PRIMITIVE
CHURCH, NOR BY ANY GENERAL COUNCIL, NOR BY
THE GREEK CHURCH.

The Romish doctrine is,
“ Whosoever shall not receive as sacred and can-

onical, all those Books and every part of them, as

sacred and canonical, as they are read in the Catholic

Church, &C. LET HIM BE ACCURSED.” ^

That list of Books, includes the following : Tobit,

Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Daniel, and

two of Maccabees.

Let it be remembered in the outset, that it was more

than one thousand and five hundred years after Christ,

that this list was first sent forth to the world, to be

received under pain of the awful curses of God.

And yet, aside from the want of the internal evi-
dence of their divine origin, (which might be easily

shown,) they lack entirely, that strong gi-ound, on which

we receive the list of the Canonical Books of the Holy
Scriptures, viz

;
the testimony of the Catholic Church.

* Fourth Sess. Co. of Trent. A. D. 1546.



42 REASONS WHY

Long indeed is that list of early Fathers, all of whom
must be considered as included under the curses of

this modern Romish Council. The early Fathers, who
have left us lists of the Books of the Old and New
Testaments, did not receive one single one of these

Apocryphal Books as sacred and canonical. Thus

Melito, A. D. 177., Origen, A. D. 200, Eusebius, A. D.

315, Hilary A. D. 354, Epiphanius, A. D. 368, Greg-

ory of Naziandrum, A. D. 370. Amphilochus, A. D.

370, Jerome, A. D. 392—all these early Fathers on
whose testimony the Sacred Scriptures were handed

down to the Church, reject every single one of the
Apocryphal Books.

The first Council of the Church which took in hand
the subject of the list of the Sacred Books was that

of Laodicea, A. D. 367, and yet that Council rejected

every one of these Apocryphal Books, (unless it be

Baruch, of which there is dispute,) and their decision

was confirmed by the General Council of Chalcedon. ^

Such is the overwhelming authority of the Catho-

lic Church against the Romish doctrine on this subject.

It is not enough, that she claims the right, to withold

entirely from the people, the sacred oracles, but she

must also add to the sacred volume certain Books re-

jected by the whole Church for many hundreds of

years.

To whom, we ask the reader, do the following
declarations belong 1

—

“ Ye SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I com-
mand you.” 2

»Can. I. A. D. 451. » Deut. iv. 2.



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 43

“ Every word of God is pure. Add thou not unto
his Word, lest He reproach thee and thou be found
a liar.” ^

“ I testify unto every man that heareth the words

of the prophecy of this Book, if any man shall add

unto these, God shall add unto him the plagues that
are written in this Book—and if any man shall take
away from the words of the Book of this prophecy,

God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life,

and out of the Holy City, and from the things which

are written in this Book.” ^

IX.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY,
IS UNFOUNDED, UNDEFINED, AND ABSURD.

No boast of the Romish Church is more confidently
made than this. Amidst the acknowledged diversity
of opinion, on religious subjects, among nominal be-
lievers, Rome claims infallibility ofjudgment. Amidst
prevailing doubts and uncertainties, Rome claims to
speak with the greatest degree of confidence.

* Prov. XXV. 5 and 6. ’Rev.xxii. 18, 19.



44 REASONS WHY

1. But this claim is unfounded*

The portions of the Holy Scripture, which are

pressed into a support of this claim, really prove no

such thing. They are these, the promises of Christ

:

“ Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world.’ 1 “ The Gates of Hell, shall not prevail

against it” (the Church.) ^

But certain things must be taken for granted, before

the Romanist can plead these promises of Christ, in

support of his doctrine. First, that they 'promise infal-

libility ofjudgment at all to the Church, on all ques-

tions. Second, that they promise this to any particular

branch of the Church. And thirds That they promise
this to the Romish Church.

The most that these Scriptures prove, is, the per-
petual presence oi Christ with his Church—and the
indefectibility or perpetual duration of the Church.

But yet, no one particular branch of the Church, has

a right to appropriate even this to itself. The Church

of Ephesus was threatened, that the candlestick should

be removed from its place. And we know, that mul-
titudes of individual Churches, once planted on ground,

baptized even with the blood of martyrs, have now no
name or place. The candlestick has been removed.

Rome can plead no security against such a final end,
without first taking for granted, the very thing to be

proved. We know that the Church of Christ on the
Earth, shall outlive all revolutions and all change.

For the mouth of the Lord hath spok^*\ it. But we

* Matt, xxviii. 20. ’Matt, xv'



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 45

know too, that a “ falling away” first was also clearly

predicted, and that that prediction has in part been

fearfully fulfilled. “ Let him that tliinketh he standeth,

take heed lest he fall.” ^

2. This claim of Romish Infallibility, is undefined^

The Romanists themselves, have never been able

to tell us, where the seat of this infallibility is located.

Nor have they ever assigned to it, a locality, which

cannot be shown to be in the highest degree absurd

and ridiculous.

The Romanists known as Transalpines, contend
that the Pope himself is infallible. On the other hand
the Cisalpines, deny entirely this personal infallibility

of the Pope, and contend that he may be deposed for
heresy or schism. While another class of Romanists,

midway between these, maintain, that Infallibility lies

in neither the Pope, or in General Councils, alone,

but in the decisions of Councils, after having been

sanctioned by the Pope.

Thus we see that, while Infallibility is a very high
sounding word, on which to ring changes in the ears

of discordant sects, yet that when we come to look
after the very thing itself, nobody knows where it is.

It is both here, and there, and no where.

3. But this claim is not only unfounded and unde-

fined^ it is also absurd. For it can be shown, again

and again, that, wherever this seat of Romish Infallibil-

ity may be supposed to reside, the claim is chargeable,
beyond all dispute, with the most gross self-contradic-

tions, rendering the idea of infallibility preposterous.

* 1 Cor. X. 12.



46 REASONS WHY

To quote an example or two, and for these only
we have room, Is the seat of Infallibility in the Pope
of Rome I—In the Sixth Century, Pope Greg-
ory said, that whoever claimed the Universal Episco-

pate is the forerunner of Antichrist. ^

And yet, a few years after, Boniface III. claimed this
Universal Episcopate, and so have also numbers of his

successors. Who is infallible, Gregory or Boniface ?
In A. D. 1590, Pope Sextus V. published an

Edition of the Latin Vulgate, to be received every-

where as true, legitimate, authentic, and undoubted,

ordered that all future Editions should conform to it,

and that not the least syllable be changed, added, or

omitted, on pain of the greater excommunication.

And yet, not long after. Pope Clement VII, suy-
•pressed this Edition, and published another of his own,

in which he made more than two thousand corrections.

Who was infallible, Sextus V. or Clement VII ?
Pope Liberius subscribed an Arian Creed, for

w'hich St. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, said, “ I anathe-

matize thee, O Liberius, thee and thy companions,
again I anathematize thee, and for the third time I say

unto thee, O Liberius, that thou art a prevaricator.” ^

Pope Honorius I. embraced the Monothelite heresy,

for which the Sixth General Council condemned him,

and he was also anathematized by several succeeding

Popes. Were Honorius and Liberius both infallible 1—
Are these Popes, condemning and excommunicating

each other, all infallible ?—We see then, that the plea
^ Greg. Magii. Ep. lib. vi. Ep. 30.

’Oper. pp. 1158. 1134.



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 47

of the 'personal infallibility of the Pope is, in the high-

est degi'ee, absurd and ridiculous.

And so also, it can be shown, that wherever the

seat of Infallibility is supposed to be located, that

claim is preposterous. For we have before us, the

spectacle of Council against Council, affirming and

denying the very same identical things. Council and

Pope against Council and Pope, mutually contradicting

each other, or contradicting the whole united voice ot

the Church, for hundreds of years.

Such is the Romish doctrine of Infallibility. We
have shown it to be unfounded, undefined, and absurd.

If other proofs are needed, they are abundant.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH CHURCH CONDUCTS HER PUB-
Lie WORSHIP IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE, AND THERE-
BY DISREGARDS THE TEACHING OF THE HOLY
SCRIPTURES, AND THE PRACTICE OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH.

The Council of Trent declared, that

Whosoever shall affirm .... that the Mass should

be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only .... let

HIM BE ACCURSED.” ^

XXII. Sess. Chap. 8. Can. 1.



48 REASONS WHV

1. Nothing can more pointedly condemn the prac-

tice of the Church of Rome, in this respect, than the

language of St Paul. “ Except ye utter, by the tongue,

words easy to he understood, how shall it be known,

what is spoken ] For ye shall speak into the air.” ^

“ Else when thou shall bless with the Spirit, how

shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say.

Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing, he understand-

eth not what thou sayest'?”^

2. The offering of such a service in an unknovra

tongue is in the highest degree unreasonable.—As an
ancient writer said of the Hebrew text, “ What good

doth a well sealed up V
’—and so it may be asked, of

what possible edification can it be to the worshippers,

to address the Most High in language which is to them

but unmeaning sound ? Have they no understanding

to be exercised 1 no conscience to be addressed % no

devout emotions of praise to be offered 1 no contrition

to acknowledge] no mercy to implore] Is such a

congregation of immortal accountable beings, to be

treated as so many stocks and stones ] Is the old In-

fidel libel after all true—that “ Ignorance is the mother
of devotion !” Shall the Priests of the Most High,

sanction the opinion, that Religion can only exert an

influence upon men, by withholding its claims from

their understandings, their judgments, and their

consciences !

3. Such a method of conducting public worship is

unprimitive and uncatholic.

I deem it unnecessary to affirm to the reader that

* 1 Cor. xiv. 0. M Cor. xiv. 16. 17.



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 49

in all parts of the world, where the Early Church was
established, the Liturgies and Offices of the Church,
were composed in the vernacular tongue. Such Litur-
gies of those venerable Churches still exist, as the
Syriac and Grreek Liturgies, Arabic and Coptic, stand-

ing monuments against the coiTuptions of Modern
Rome.

In the ninth Century, when the Slavons were con-
verted to Christianity, Pope John VIIL wrote to the
Prince and Bishop of the Slavons allowing them to have
the public services in their own tongue. Such a well
attested fact as this, shows what was the custom of the
Church at that age.

And as late as A. D. 1215, the Lateran Council
ordered, “ Because in most parts, there are, within the
same State or Diocese, people of different languages,
mixed together, having under one Faith, various rites
and customs, we distinctly charge, that the Bishops
of these States or Dioceses, provide proper persons,
to celebrate the divine offices, and administer the Sa-
craments of the Church, according to the differences of
rites and language^ ^ *

Unscriptural, unedifying, and uncatholic and incon-
sistent with itself, then, is the Romish practice, of
offering up unto God a public worship, in language, to
the people wholly unintelligible.

^ IV. Lateran—Canon IX.
* The Romish Church is also inconsistent with herself. For,

in her more modern efforts to bring over to the Papal Church, the
Greeks, the Armenians, the Nestorians, and the Maronites, she
allows them still to use their own Liturgies, in their own langua
ges as before.

3



50 REASONS WHY

XL

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH CHURCH TEACHES, THAT THE
INTENTION OF THE PRIEST, IS NECESSARY, IN
PERFORMING AND CONFERRING THE SACRAMENTS.

Her language is,
“ Whosoever shall affirm, that when ministers per-

form and confer the Sacraments, it is not necessary,

that they should at least have, the intention to do,

what the Church does, let him be accursed.” ^

And what are these Sacraments 1—Baptism, Con-
firmation, the Lord’s Supper, Penance, Extreme Unc-

tion, Orders, and Matrimony, to deny either of which

to be Sacraments, or as necessary to salvation, is to

be liable to the curses of the Church of Rome.

And yet, what Romanist can tell, whether he ever
received either of these Sacraments or not ] How
does he know, that, at the time of performing, or con-

ferring the Sacraments, the Priest did not for some

reason lack intention to perform'' or “ administer”

them 1 How can he tell, but that, from either, lack of
moral honesty, or from infirmity, physical or mental,

or from fatigue, or from carelessness, or indifference,

there did not lack intention of the Priest ?—Indeed,
upon this doctrine of the Romish Church, no person

can ever be certain that he has received, either Bap-

tism, or any other of the Seven Sacraments.

* Co. of Trent, Sess. VII. Can. XI.



I AM NOT. A PAPIST. 51

In distinction from this, it is the doctrine of the

Catholic Church, that the Sacraments of God’s Church,

are channels, through which He administers grace to
all who properly receive them, and that the reception
of that grace, does not depend, upon the whim, the

w’ill, the infirmity, the immorality, or the intention of

the administrator.

XII.

I AM NOT A Papist

—

BECAUSE THE ROMISH CHURCH, HOLDS UNSCRIPTU-
RAL AND UNCATHOLIC NOTIONS RESPECTING THE
VISIBLE UNITY OV THE CHURCH.

Her doctrine may be expressed in the following prop-
osition, that “ the Pope of Rome is the divinely ap-
pointed Supreme Head of the Catholic Church, and
the divinely appointed Centre of Ecclesiastical Unity.’*

The former part of this proposition, has been in-

cluded under Reasons I. and II.

The latter part has just that sort of dreamy poeti-

cal indefiniteness about it, which is admirably adapted to

captivate unstable and visionary minds. We have no
doubt that this imaginary something, this impalpable

“ visible centre of ecclesiastical unity” is the very idea,

which has attracted those wandering spirits, who hav-



52 REASONS WHY

ing come into the Church from the ranks of opposition,

have been borne along by the vibration of the pendu-

lum, to the opposite extreme. Wearied with those

endless divisions, which have been both their sin and

punishment, they now crave unity. Assuming that this
centre of ecclesiastical unity is some one Bishop, and

that that Bishop is the Pope of Rome, they come at
once to the conclusion, so long sought.

Precisely what is meant by this “ divinely appoint-

ed centre of ecclesiastical unity” has never been clearly

explained. We have examined on our previous pages
the claims of the Pope to Supremacy in the Church,

and when it shall be known, precisely what is meant,

by this “ centre of unity,” we shall then know how to
test its claims by Holy Scripture and the Catholic

Church. If it be meant that there is in the Romish

Church even essential unity, among themselves, any

other unity than that of a mere name, we stand ready
to prove, that under a merely nominal unity, no other

religious body has been more thoroughly convulsed

with intestine divisions. Pope against Pope,—Council
against Council,—Decrees of Councils approved by
some, and rejected by other portions of the Church,

—

every shade of doctrinal opinion vigorously attacked and

defended,—rival and jealous religious orders, shak-
ing Romanism to its centre,—broils, wars, and commo-
tions, earned on to advance sectional ambition—this, and
much more like this, is the real story of Romish Unity.

But that Unity, for which all good Catholics should

live and pray, is not unity under one Pope, but under

Jesus Christ, whom and whom alone “ hath God given



I ARI NOT A PAPIST. 53

to be Head over all things to the Church.” ^ And St.
Paul says—“ Christ is the Head of the Church and
Saviour of the body.”^ “ He is the Head of the body,
the Church, that in all things, He might have
the preeminence.” ^ This Great Head of the Church as-

cended to Heaven, in his visible once crucified body, and

in that same body He has gone up to the Courts of
Heaven to attest the purchase of man’s redemption

from the Grave and Hell, and He will come again, at
the last, even so as He was seen to go.

Awfully presumptuous indeed it must be for any

poor mortal, to attempt to occupy that place in the

Church, which Jesus Christ purchased for himself of

the Father, by his own conquest of death and Hell.
That unity in which the Catholic Church believes,

is the Unity of “ One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,”

there being “ One God and Father of all, who is above
all, and through all, and in you all.” ^

One” in the essential unity of those Formularies

by which that “ Faith” is embodied and perpetuated.
” One” in the divinely appointed ministry, by which

that “ Baptism” is administered. “ One” in the unity

of that “ body” into which all are baptized by “ one

spirit,”—of that body, there being many members yet
all of “ one body.”

Such is the essential unity of the Church of Christ.

It is evinced and witnessed, in the visible profession,

of this one Lord, and one Faith,—in the reception of
this one Baptism,—in the union and communion of the

^Eph. i. 22. “Eph. v. 23. *Col i. 18.

^ Eph. iv. 5. ® Eph. iv. 6.



54 11 EASONS WHY

people with the Presbyter, of the Presbyters with the

Bishop, and of the Bishops with each other, in doc-

trine, sacraments and councils, (for as St. Cyprian says

“ the Episcopate is one”) and in the communion and

fellowship of all, people. Presbyters and Bishops, in

the common sacraments and privileges of the Church,
“ in breaking of bread and in prayers,” every where

throughout the world. Such is the real unity, such the

visible unity of the Church of Christ. A thing, most
unlike, and abhorrent to, that forced, usurped, tyran-

nical, and only nominal unity, of the Chui'ch of Borne.

CONCLUSION.
We have now given as above, twelve Reasons, why
the Catholic Churchman cannot be a Papist.

It will be borne in mind also, that none of these

objections, can be urged against that branch of the

Church in the United States which the Churchman loves

and honors as the Spouse of Christ, the Pillar and

Ground of the Truth. Her ministry, doctrines, disci-

pline, and worship, will bear the test of the Holy

Scriptures, as interpreted by the Ancient Catholic

Church. Upon this strong foundation. Catholic An-

tiquity, does the Church stand, while on the contrary

we have as we trust, clearly shown that some of the
principal corruptions, and usurpations, of the Church

of Rome are both anti-scriptural, and anti-catholic. We
have not arrayed private opinion, against Romanism,,

but have shown, that Rome arrays herself, against t4^



I AM NOT A PAPIST. 55

teaching of God’s Holy Word, and the authoritative

decisions, of the Catholic Church. Neither are these

“ Twelve Reasons” all. The half has not been told.
Let all these objections be obviated and there still re-

main almost as many more, corruptions in the Cath-
olic Faith, doctrine, discipline, and worship, unremov-

ed. Still there exists, her doctrine of justification by

inherent and infused righteousness,—her doctrine, of
making numerous modern novelties, to be received by

all, as “ matters of FaitV on fain of damnation ,—her
doctrine of Purgatory and the sale of Indulgences, the

source of her unholy traffic,—her doctrine of the forced
celibacy of the clergy, at once anti-scriptural, and of

evil tendency,—her doctrine of auricular confession,
and the social and political evils of which history de-

clares it to have been the engine,—her doctrine of the
worship of Images and Invocation of the Saints,—her
doctrine of “ a true proper and propitiatory sacrifice for

the quick and the dead in the Mass” when, “ once in the

end of the world hath Christ appeared to put away

sin by the sacrifice of himself.” ^

All these are some of the evils, the errors, and cor-

ruptions, in doctrine, discipline, and worship, now
chargeable upon the Romish Church. These are the

evils, which awoke in the breast of immense numbers

of her members at the Reformation, a spirit, which no

force could subdue. Beneath such a mountain of

moral wrongs, a fire is still slumbering, which may
be smothered for awhile, but which cannot be extin-

guished, and which will finally break forth.

* Heb. ix. 26.



56 REASONS, ETC.

Let the Church of Rome, then, for her own sake,

for the sake of the millions of souls, in
her embrace,

for the sake of Jesus Christ, and his
Church through-

out the world, purify herself from these.
Let her,

distinguishing between what is Catholic, and
what is

Romish, return to the faith as it was once
delivered

to the saints, and as it was once held
“ everywhere

and hy ally She has within herself and at
her com-

mand, the elements of great efficiency.
God grant,

that her well marshalled hosts, may be found
standing

in the front ranks, at the final
conflict of the Church,

and the hour of her victory.

But, let her beware, lest at that day,
when the fire

shall try every man’s work, of what
sort it is, when

the gold, and silver, and precious
stones, and wood,

and hay, and stubble, shall be made
manifest, for the

day shall declare it, let her
beware, lest, the corrup-

tions for which she is responsible,
become then the

sources of her sad dismay, if not
the elements of her

total destruction.
“ Other foundation, can no man lay

than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ. ^

* 1 Cor. iii. 11—13-

THE END.

Printed by John R. M’Gown, 106,
Fulion-etreet, New-York.



rHE OLD EPISCOPAL BOOKSTORE

CATALOGUE
OP

EPISCOPAL WOEKS,
PUBLISHED BY

TRINITY CHURCH.

STANFORD & SWORDS.
(LATE SWORDS, STANFORD & CO.,)

NO. 139, BROADWAY, NEW-YORK.

(£ 0 tablt 0 ^^i in 17S7.



Valuable Works^ pubUsJicd by Stanford ^ Swords.

MARGARET; OR, THE PEARL.

B Y T H K

R E V . C H A R L E S B . T A 1’ L E R ,
AUTHOB f>F “ I.ADY MART,” “ RECORDS OF A GOOD MAN’S LIFE,” &C. AC.

In one handsome duodecimo volume. 75c.

“ A ^ood book may b« compared to a dear aod faitiiful friend, always welcome, and
lending its influence to clicer and freslien the piithway of life. To this class tlie writings
of the pious and gifted author of the jtresent volume justly belong. Tlie favorable recep-
tion. by a discerning public, of two of the works of the Kev. Mr, Tayler, recently issued
from their press, has encouraged the publishers to add a iMrd ; confidently believing that
the valuable instructions and examples abounding in it, apart from the great interest of
the narrative itself, will render ‘Alargaret’ no unfit companion to ‘The Records of a
Good Man’s Life,’ and ‘ I.ady Mary.” All tlirec are worthy a place iii every family and
parish library.”

—

Publishers' Preface.
“ Those who have read ‘Lady Mary,’ anti ‘ The Records of a Good Man’s Life,” will

be anxious to peruse tliis volume. It is one of those gents of religious fictioi>, which teach
truth in a manner equally calculated to inform the mind amJ impress the heart, without
exciting appeals to the imagination, or unwholesome stimulants to the religioirs sensibili-
ties.”—Protestant Churchman.

“ VVe are glad to see this work republisqed here. It is a book for the family, convey-
ing instruction and awakening reflection, while it arrests the attention, and retains it by
the truthfulness of its domestic scenes.”—Evening Gazette.

“ It is unnecessary to say, except to those who are unacquainted with this gifted au-
thor’s other writings, that the volume is both highly instructive and attractive.”—Southern
Churchman.

“ A pleasing narrative of pride and wealth subdued to suffering and humiliation, and
false opinions overcome by faith in Christ. Nothing could be more proper and Christian-
like than tie tone and temper of this little volume, which will be read by the religious
with pleasure and profit. It is very prettily sent forth by the American publishers.”—
Southern Patriot.

“The typography and general appearance of the volume is highly creditable to tha
publishers.”—Albany Evening Journal.



Valuable Works, imhlislied by Stanford. Swords.

One volume. 12mo. 75c.

“ A further examination of this work has confirmed our opinion, and made us desire to
reiterate our testimony, that it is truly a Protestant History, written in a most attractive
style. When we first saw it, we did not suppose it was i)ossible for any one to invest so
threadbare a subject with any degree of novel interest. But we were mistaken, and we
are glad to be able to express the opinion, that the publishers have done well to select it.
The title is singular but most appropriate, and the incidents connected with it are most
ingeniously made tl»e basis of the whole history,

—

Episcopal Recorder,
“ We trust all our readers wi 1 forthwith buy this book and read it. It will furnish an

effectual antidote to all the iiere'iical t'asl p. lined upon the unwary, the evident intention
of which is to palliate Roman corruption on the specious ground of charity.”—Protest-
ant Churchman.

“ Clear in its style and sound in its influence, it is a complete Protestant history, writ-
ten b}' one who has invested the almost threadbare slniject with a novel interest, and it is
well calculated as an antidote to the many heretical volumes which have from time to
time fascinated the unwary and led the mind captive to corrupt and unscriptural doc-
trines.

—

Boston Evening Transcript.
“ It is an interesting book to all interested in antiquities, Church history and polity.”

—N. Y. Gazette.
“ A book which combines the fascination of romance with the instruction of real

history.”—Mobile Daily Advertiser.



Devotional Works, published by Stanford
!f Sworas.

TREATISE ON THE LORD’S SUPPER,
DESIGNED AS A GUIDE AND

COMPANION TO THE HOLY COMMUNION.
BY THE REV. EDWARD BICKERSTETH,

Editedf and adapted to the Services of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States,

BY THE REV. LEWIS P. W. BALCH,
Rector of Sl Bartholomew’s Church, N. Y.

One handsome volume. 12mo. 75c.
CONTENTS.—Part I.—Chap. 1. The Appointment of the Lord’s Supper

—2. The Atonement made by tne Death of Christ—3. Our Faith in Christ’s
Atonement—4. On the New Covenant—5. The Design of the Lord’s Supper
—6. The Obligation to Receive the Lord’s Supper—7. Answers to the Ex-
cuses commonly made for not Coming to the Lord’s Supper—8. On Receiv
ing Unworthily—9. On the Benefits connected with a Due Reception of the
Lord’s Supper—10. The Happiness which would follow its General and
Devout Obseiwance—11. On Communion with Christ and His People on
Earth—12. On the Heavenly Communion to be Hereafter enjoyed with
our Lord. Part II.—Chap. 1. On Preparation for the Lord’s Supper—2.
Helps for Self-Examination, and Prayers—3. Meditations Preparatory to
the Lord’s Supper.—4. Hints for the Regulation and Employment of the
Mind during the Communion Sendee

—

5. On the Communion Service of the
Church—6. On the Remembrance of Christ at the Lord's Table—7. Medi-
tations during the Communion—8. Texts selected for Meditation, and
arranged under dilTerent Heads—9 Meditations and Prayers after Receiving
—10. Psalms and Hymns suited to the Lord’s Supper—11. The Due Im-
provement of the Lord’s Supper.

“ It is indeed a cause of devout thankfulness, that hooks likt ‘ Bickersteth’s Treatise
on the Lord’s Supper ’ are in such demand. And a fervent Prayer is offered to God, that
every effort to enlighten the hearts of men on the subject of the Holy Communion, may
••eceive His gracious bicssiug, until the time come when all ‘ shall be devoutly and reli-
giously disposed to receive the most comfortable sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Christ, in remembrance of His meritorious Death and Passion, whereby alone we obtain
remission of our sins, and arc made partakers of the kingdom of heaven. ’ ”

NEW MANUAL OF DEVOTIONS,
LN TIlltF.K PARTS.

Containing Prayers for Families and Private Persons: Offices of Humiliation

—for the Sick—for Womeu—for the Holy Communion—with Oc-
casional Prayers.

CORRECTED A.ND ENLARGED BY THE BIGHT REV

LEVI S 1 L L I M A N IVES, D . D .

,

Bishop of the Diocese of North-Caroliua.

TO WHICH I.S ADDED,
A FRIENDLY VISIT TO Tl?E HOUSE OF MOURNING.

BY THE REV. RICHARD CECIL, M. A.
One large 12mo. volume. $1.00.

** The volume here presented to the public, contains forms suited to all
conditions in which human beings may be placed, and almost all conceivable
variatiens of their circumstances, in a style well adapted to the simplicity ol
•incere and genuine piety.”



Valuable Works
^
ptihlished hi/ Stanford Swords.

PALMER^S CHURCH HISTORY.
A COMPENDIOUS ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY,
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE PRESENT TIME.
BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M. A.,

AUTHOR OF “ ORIGINES LITURGIC^,*’ &C.
WITH PREFACE AND NOTES BY AN AMERICAN EDITOR.

In one volume. 12mo. 50c.
“ The truly learned and sound-minded author has set himself honestly to seek out the

results of the system devised by Heavenly Wisdom, and set in operation by God himself,
when He dwelt amou" us. He does not puzzle himself and his reader with an attempt at
a ‘ pragmatical ’ investigation of the human motives and propensities that have carried on,
while they seemed to thwart and viwatn, the divine counsels for man’s salvation. Still
less does he stoop to flatter the poor pride of human reason by lowering a narrative of
God’s doings with and in his Church to the tone of secular history, and making all plain
and easy for the most uuspiritunl comprehension. He writes as a believer of t!ie facts that
he narrates ; but not a believer without investigation. He writes as one whose own be-
lief makes him in earnest with liis reader, and in consc(|uence leaves the impression of
reality on the mind. Convinced that God did indeed found liis Church upon a rock,
immoveable and unconquerable, lie looks for it, without fear or shrinking, amid the worst
of tempests of controversial strife or secular oppression, and unde*- tlie deepest mists
of ignorance and error, and not only finds it, signalized by its unvarying tokens of peace,
holiness and joy, but makes it obvious to others. We see, with liim, that though times havo
changed, and manners varied, the word and promise of God have endured unchanged, and
their accomplishment has gone on invariably.”—Bishop IVhittingham.

RECORDS OF A GOOD MAN^S LIFE,
BY THE

REV. CHARLES B. TAYLER, M. A.
One handsome volume. 12mo. 75c.

•• This is, indeed, a ‘ golden book ’—one that cannot be read without as much profit ai
E
leasure by all who feel interest in the life of a good country parson. The narrative ex
ibits the character of a man who was distinguished, not for talent or learning, but for

being in earnest, and heartily endeavoring to live up to his Christian profcss'on—with
whom baptism was not a form, but the commencement of a life of Christian faith.”-

—

Banner of the Cross,
“ An elegant reprint of a volume endeared to many a heart by a thousand charms of

style, sentiment, and pious meditation. The loveliness of humanit)' pa.ssing through the
stages of life under the influence, and illuminated by the divine light of the pure precepts
of the Gospel, the surpassing beauty of holiness exhibited in the character of woman as a
Christian wife and mother, and the manly dignity and nobleness of the Christian father
and husband, are all here exhibited so sweetly, so truthfully, so eloquently, as to touch
the soul of the most obdurate. We trust all our readers are so familiar with these pages,
as to feel the Justice of our praise, and to seize eagerly the opportunity of again meeting
an old and beloved companion.”—Protestant Churchman.

HOBART^S FESTIVALS AND FASTS.
A Companion to tlie Festivals and Fasts of the Protestant Episcopal Church

in the United States of America. Principally selected and altered
from Nelson’s Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of

the Church of England.

WITH FORMS OF DEVOTION.
BY JOHN HENRY HOBART, D. D.,

BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF NEtV-YORK.

One volume. \2mo. 75c.
•• It will prove a useful companion in the exalted exercises of the Christian lifei

and, while it serves to impress on the mem^ ers of the Episcopal Communion the excei-
knee of their truly Apostolic and Primitive Church, it must excite them to adorn th«ir
|»rofwiiK>u h/ corresponding fervor »f piety and sanctity of manners.”



Valuahle Works, 'published by Stanford Swora.^

SPENCER^S ENGLISH REFORMATION.

HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND.

BY THE

REV. J. A. SPENCER, A. M.

“AUTHOR OF THE CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTED IN THE WAYS OF
THE GOSPEL AND THE

CHURCH.”

One Volume. IQmo. 50c.

“The author ‘claims to have carefully sought exactness and
precision m reprd to facts

and circumstances; to have consulted every
writer within Ins reach, in order to verify the

statement made in the text; to have endeavored to be stricUy
just and f^air towards all

parries and persons; and to have set fortli the public
acts of the Church a»cl fmte as

faithfully as he was able, and as fully as the limits
of the volume would admit. We

re-ard it a.s of especial imporiauce at this time,
that the causes which led to the reforina-

tio'n of the Church in Kngland, should be well
understood. 1 here are many peisons to

whom the larger histories of it are not accessible, and who
would not have time to study

them if they were. To such, and to the young learner,
tins little book ol -00 ''

‘‘J

impart much useful information upon that interesting era
in the history ot the Church.

~‘^irrudic^nt*and”fm'^ treatise on the Reformation
in England, admirably adapted

for fnnilies and Ibr Sui.dav ^^chool
libraries. Although altogellier unpretending, i

precisely one of the books most fitted to do good,
in the times upon which we have tallen.

h Sls K^^^
* * * W^hen such desperate and nii-

cci^iri ' efforts are ni id^ all around us to vill.fy
the Reformation it is the duty ot eve.-y

Chiirchinaii not only to inform Inm.self on the subject,
but to sec that the truth is biou.hl

lo beiir uiion mfnds of his children, who may
soon be culled to a fiercer and more

eiirnest struggle to maintain it than any to which
he himself is summoned.—Protestant

^‘‘Tn^ITcceptable contribution to ece,lesia.stieal
literature. The author throws into con-

trast the Icadiipr principles of Protestantism
with the past and ex'ftin? elements of

and not expensive

of t irg eiH the people are laudably
anxious to know what those princi-

pL aret To much ”u^ ii abroad, so many various assertions f
Id. co„Mc„cc i. J
to/uine has had in view ; it has been lii.s aim to

present /acts, and not

ffivp evidence and not barely his view of the Kelorniation
and its principles. It t

feature whieli we particularlV admire in this volume,
and which

norSbS'S
irour readers ; for though Mr. Spencer’s own

views are
^

;Si=‘iJx i^fr (SJ;h’s^^iatT:n.n::wes rsT to \i;i:^-hu o^
concTTii We ^re not aware that in a single instance Mr. 3.

oversteps the true bounds

iw uthirh the historiiiu oujfht to be restruiuetl. ^ . r- ». j c?
^“The literary and mechanical execution of this

volume are of the first order.

writes eS flue tlv and vigorou.slv, and occasionally his subject warms into eloquence
The oublislSrs dTer^ great credit for the style in which

they have issued the book not

ISJc than for the very low price at which
they offer it for sale, in order we are confide^

to give it that wide circulation which the
moiueutous nature of the subject demands.

K. Y. Gazette If Times.



Devotional Works, puhlisJied by Stanford Sf Sicords.

JENKS^ DEVOTIONS,
ALTERED AND IMPROVED

BY THE REV. CHARLES SIMEON, M. A.,
FELLOW OF king’s COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

From the 33d London edition. One volume. \3mo. 50c.
“ Its distin^uishiii" excellency is, that far the greater part of the Prayers appear to hav#

Deen prayed and not wri'.ten. There is a spirit of humiliation in them, which is admira-
bly suited to express the sentiments and feelings of a contrite heart. There is also a
fervor of devotion in them, which can scarcely fail of kindling a corresponding dame ia
the breasts of those who use them. But it is needless to pronounce an eulogy on a book,
the value of which has been already tested by the sale of many myriads."

NELSON ON DEVOTION.
THE PRACTICE OF TRUE DEVOTION,

W RELATIO.N TO THE E.ND, AS WELL AS THE MEANS OF RELIGION;
WITH AN OFFICE FOR THE HOLY COMMUNION;

BY ROBERT NELSON, ESQ.
One vohime. ISmo. 50c.

HOBART^S CHRISTIAN'S MANUAL.
THE CHRISTIAN’S MANUAL

OF FAITH AND DEVOTION,
CoD’aim'ng Dialogues and Prayers suited to the Various Exerercises of the

Christian Life, and an Exhortation to Ejaculatory Prayer, with
Forms of Ejaculatory and Other Prayers.

BY JOHN HENRY HOBART, D. D.,
BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF NEW-YORK.

One thick mo . volume. 63c.
“ Tts object is to exhibit and enforce the various exercises, duties, and

pririleges of the Christian life, to awaken the careless; to excite the lake-
warm

;
and to instruct and comfort the penitent believer.”

THE COMMUNICANT'S MANUAL.
CONTAIN' INC, THK ORDKIt FOR THK ADMINISTRATION OF

THE HOLY COMMUNION.
BY THE LATE BISHOP HOBART, OF NEW-YORK.

TO WHICH ARF, ADDED
PRAYERS AND MEDITATIONS.

BY BISHOPS TAYLOR, BEVERIDGE, AND OTHERS.
A beautfill miniature edition. 31c.

PASSION WEEK:
THREE SERMONS OF LANCELOT ANDREWES,

BISHOP OF WINCHESTER,

ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD.
TO WHICH ARE ADDED

EXTRACTS FROM HIS DEVOTIONS.
One volume. ISwo. 3Sc.

'• The author was a man of prayer, ‘lull of faith and of the Holy Ghost;’ his thoughts
were often of the things of God, and his life was of as high an order as his ihoughu. il
kn style is somewhat old, yet it is full of life and point, and the matter rich ; and to hiia
wh« feels arigiii, his theme is ever uew, aud though comiuou always stirriug.**



Valuable Works, published by Stanford Sf Swords.

RECANTATION.
Becantation, or, the Confessions of a Convert to Bomanism.

A TALE OF DOMESTIC AND RELIGIOUS LIFE IN ITALY.
EDITED BY

REV. \VM. INGRAHAM KIP.
One handsome volume. \Q>mo. 63c.

“This volume is a reprint of one published in London during the last year. A friend
placed it in the hands of the editor, because from his acquaintance with the scenes in
which the story is laid, and the opportunities he had enjoyed of gaining some knowledgo
of the tone of thought and feeling prevailing in Italian society, it was believed ho might
be able to decide on the Justness of its claims to be taken as a faithful picture. To the
fidelity of the author’s description of places, the Editor can bear his unhesitating testimony.
Almost every page arrayed before him some scene associated with the pleasant hours he
spent in classic Italy. The stately palaces of fascinating Florence—the woody hill of
Fiesole, where Milton mused and wrote—the peaceful valleys of ‘leafy Vallambrosa’—
the animated walks of the Casciiic—the treasures of the Pitti Palace—the splendor of the
Ducal Court—the beautiful scenery of luxuriant Tuscan}'—all, are called up again to
memory by the allusions of this narrative. And mingled with these came less pleasing
remembrances of superstitions such as arc here portrayed, and the surveillance of a
religious despotism before which all trembled. The scoffing, infidel tone of some of these
conversations is not imaginary. The Editor has himself heard it, when men uttered to
him, a foreigner, what they would not dare to speak to their own countrymen, and even
then declared their unbelief in the system tinder which they were forced to live,

‘ in bondsmen’s key.
With bated breath and whispering fcarfulness.’

He feels, therefore, that the whole air of this work is truthful, and as such he would com-
mend it to his young countrywomen.”

—

Rev. IV. I. Kip.
“ This is a work of fiction. The subject of it was an English lady who abandoned the

faith of the Church of England, which was in the way of her marriage with an Italian
nobleman; the marriage was consummated

;
she lived unhappily ; renounced her connec-

tion with the Church of Rome, and returned to her former faith. It will be a popular
book, no doubt.”

—

Banner of the Cross.
“ The work has a iieculiar interest, apart from its merits as a composition, and will be

read probably by both Roman Catholic.s and Protestants.”

—

Express.
“ \Ve have been more deeply intere.sted in this neatly got up and well printed volume

than we had any expectation of when we commenced. It relates to a topic of great interest
at the present tune, and will, we trust, be the means of leading jiarents to consider the
dangerous fascinations of Romanism as presented by Jesuits and studied apologists, and
bow easily the ignorant are led to believe its lying absurdities. We beg to add our testi-
mony to that of the accomplished editor of the volume in favor of its truthfulness and
fairness. Indeed we might go much further and declare that from some slight acquaint-
ance with Italian life and manners, we think the author has under stated the trutli in
regard to the practical infidelity of the better informed in the Romish Church. Such is
certainly our opinion. However that may be, we commend the volume to the thoughtful
perusal of our readers.”—Young Churchman's Miscellany.
“A seasonable and valuable work.”—Evening Gazette.
“This is a beautifully printed volume. The title sufficiently explains the nature of the

work, and the object for which it is designed.”

—

Southern Churchman.
“ Of the theology of this work, our neutrality forbids us to speak; but of its literary

merits we can and must speak favorably. It is a tale of domestic and religious life in
Italy, by one who has seen all that is here described. The allusions are redolent with
classic sweets. The book is artistically got up by the trade.”

—

N. Y. Sun.
“ We have not read this work, but some of our Protestant friends, who have read it,

say that it is a charming book ; that it gives a more perfect insight into the interior of
Italian society, than any book recently published; that «he story is well told and the
interest is maintained to the last; and that the lovers of fiction and the lovers of truth will

be abka gratified by its perusal.”

—

Louisville Journal,



Valuahh Works, published by Stanford Sf Swords.

HOBART’S STATE OF THE DEPARTED.
THE STATE OF THE DEPARTED.

BY JOHN HENRY HOBART, D. D.
BISHOP 0£ THE PROT. EPIS. CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF NEW-TORK.

Fourth Edition. One Volume. \2mo. 50c.

funpTaVof'Rkhnn’M™®’
address delivered by Bishop Hobart, at the

® New-York, i„ 1816: also, a ‘ Dissertation on The State of De-
m it-

Descent of Christ into Hell;’ written by Bishop Hobart, in conse-

inbb
haying been taken to his funeral address. The dissertation ispublished as last revised by the Right Reverend author. Those who wish to informthenise ves upon this subject, will find in this book as good a treatise upon it as they willprobably ever meet with.”—J?a«wer o/t/ie Cross.

P i as luey win

Drnlr*ipd
pccupicd by ‘A Dissertation on the State of

^ *‘*'o Hell”—in which that subject is discussed
ith much clearness of statement, and fulness and force of reasoniii"^—presentin“- the

'^‘^h an effect ancl^iii Tcompass notelsewuere, we believe, to be found in our languare.”—So«t/iern Churchman. ^
UerJiaps t.ie best dis.'ertati<»i on the verv important question as to the state of the

fllmiis n
the course Of study for candidates for Holy Urders, it is quite super-

^ ‘-‘’Bimend it. —Young Churchman's Miscellany.
This work of the late Bishop Hobart, is published at a very seasonable time whenevery doctrine ol the Church is called in question. It was occasioned by the Bishoo’s

rbirdeftSc^^t- the^^^^^
predecessor. Bis op Moore of New-York, a^id LCunanswTr!

fhe wrldn^s of Si .eni ® e
state. Extr.icts are given as well fromt^ae writings ot Dis.senters as from those of the Anglican Church

; and the distinction

cditTon'iK'benTt f 'n
tJoctrine of purgatory is clearly pointed out. The present

ihSwnrk
“P> paper excellent, and the type clear and good

;
and asIhe work itself i^s used as a text book in the General Theological Seminary of the Church

the sale thereof will be even more rapid than it has been from its first

nSuIS. Prlss ^
issued it in so creditable a style.”—

WYATT^S PARTING SPIRIT^S ADDRESS.
THE PARTING SPIRIT’S ADDRESS TO HIS MOTHER.

BY REV. WM. EDWARD WYATT, D. D.,
BECTOK OF ST. PAUL’S PARISH, BALTIMORE.

Fou th Edition. One Volume. V^mo. 'pajjer. 13c.
^We regai.^ this as one of the most touching and beautiful things which we have ever

i,>n.«m*l“ri •
judicious, it is calculated to diffuse comfort through the mourn-

naJat wh!r!^,
beautiful and tender little thing has been issued. Ever-



JJevoiional Works, puhlislied hy Stanford 4* Sioordt.

WILBERFORCE^S PRAYERS.
FAMILY PRAYERS,

BV THE LATE

WILLIAM WILBERFORCE, ESQ.
EDITED BV HIS SON,

ROBERT ISAAC WILBERFORCE, M. A
TO WHICH ARE ADDED,

PRAYERS BY THE REV. JOHN SWETE, D. D.
One volume cloth. 25c.

“ That the habit of family demotion is not inconsistent with the most zealous and unr«-
mitted dischame of public duty is evinced by the example which the author of these Pray-
ers iitforded. His singular union, indeed, of private relision and public usefulness, may in
^eat measure be attributed to tliat state of mind of which this custom was at once a causa
and a consequence. The Grecian colonists, whose more polished manners, and the sim-
plicity of whose native speech, were endan?ered throuj^h the contaminatious of barbarian
intercourse, by assembling at stated seasons, to confess their degeneracy, and revive the
thought of purer times, retained as well the language which was their common bond, as the
superiority which was the birth-right of their race. Amidst the increasing turmoil of our
days, the custom of daily worship may be looked to by Christians for a similar result. It
has been shown, indeed, that this practice comes comineiuled by the experience of former
times. But if it were needed in a period of quiet and repose, how much more amidst the
agitation by which our cities are now convulsed, and which shakes even the villages of
our land ! In tranquil days, the disciples were comforted by the presence of Christ ; but
it was amidst the waves of Gennesaret that they learned to appreciate that power which

^

could bush the stormy elements into rest. It was when neither sun nor stars for many
days appeared, and no small tempest laj' upon him, that the captive apostle could be
of good cheer, because there was with him the angel of that God, whose he was aud whom
he served.”

THORNTONS^S PRAYERS.
FAMILY PRAYERS,

AND
PRAYERS ON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

TO WHICH IS ADDED,
A FAMILY COMMENTARY UPON THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT

BV THE LATE
HENRY THORNTON, ESQ., M. P.

EDITED BV THE
RIGHT REV. MANTON E.VSTBURN, D. D.,

Bisho]) of Massachusetts.

One handsome volume. \2mo . 15c.
•* The present volume contains two work.*, which have been separately published in Eng-

land ; the Kaiiiily Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount having appeared there, about
a year after the first edition of the Family Prayers. The arrangement now adopted wil
it is thought, be found convenient fur domestic worship ; as combining within the saiiit,
volume a Manual of prayer, and |)ortions of scriptural exposition for reading.

“ It may seem presiimiituous in the Editor to say any thing by way of introduction to
productions bearing on their title-page the name of Thornton :—a name, familiar not to
England only, but to the world ; and indissolubly associated with our thoughts of whatever
is enlarged in Christian bi neficence, sound in religious views, and beautiful in consistency
of daily practice. He will take the liberty, however, of simply saying, that in regard to
the Family Prayers, that, without at all detracting from the merit of other works of the
same description, they appear to him to pi eserve, in a remarkable degree, the difficult and
happy medium between verboseuess on the one hand, and a cold conciseness on the other.
It is believed that none can use them, without feeling that they impart a spirit of grati-
tude and self-humiliation. They are what prayers should be,—fervent, and yet perfectly
simple.

“ The Commentary upon the Sermon on the Mount, is remarkable throughout for
the profound insight into human nature which it manifests : for its clear exhibition of the
fundamental truths of the gospel; and for the faithfulness, honesty, and at the same tiieo,
the true refinement and dignity, of the language in wliieh its in.structious are conveye<L''



Valuaole Works, puhlishecl hy Stanford Sf Swm-d$..

RICHARDSON'S REASONS.
The Churchman’s Reasons for his Faith and Practice.

WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE DOCTRINE OF DEVELOPMENT.

BY THE

REV. N. S. RICHARDSON, A. M
AUTHOR OF “reasons WHY I AM A CHURCHMAN,” &C., &C., &C.

One volume. 12mo. 15c.

CONTENTS. Chapter I—Introductiou. II—The Church a Visible
Society. Ill—The Ministry Christ’s Positive Institution. IV—The Chris-
«ian Ministry consisiing of Three Orders. V—Same subject continued.
VI—Same subject continued. VII—Developments of Modern Systems.
VIII—The Unity of the Church, and the Sin and Evils of Schism. IX

—

Liturgies. X—Popular Objections against the Church answered. Appendix
—Essay on the Doctrine of Development.

“ We are glad to see this book. It is one of the kind which the age requires, and we
are happy to believe, it is also seeking. There are earnest minds and honest hearts, in
every religious denomination, who see the evils growing out of the divisions in Christen-
dom, and who are seriously inquiring whether these things ought to be. The result of
such an investigation, undertaken with such a purpose, can hardly be doubtful. It will
be a conviction that ‘God is not the author of confusion, but of order;’ that He has
instituted but one Body as the Church

;
and that all who are not in communion with this

Body, of which Christ is the head, are in what the Scriptures call schism. Having arrived
at this point, the vital question comes, what is the Church? Where can be found those
signs of a Divinely organized Body, which, originating in the appointment of Christ, has
continued to this day, and thus gives assurance that he has been with it according to his
promise, is with it, and will continue to be with it, ‘even unto the end of the world ?’ To
those who are seeking for instruction, that their judgment may be guided to a right deter-
mination of this question, we recommend this timely book. The subject of it is, ‘The
Church of God; its Visibility, Ministry, Unity, and Worship.’
“We are glad to .see that the reverend author has devoted one chapter to the ‘ Develop-

ments of Modern Systems.’ The argument derived from this subject is calculated more
than any other, we think, to lead men to discover the errors and unsoundness, and insuffi-
ciency of those systems. They cannot stand, in the judgment of sober-minded seekers
after truth, with their divisions, vascillations and heresies; before the Scriptural truth,
Apostolic order, regular Succession, and uninterrupted continuance of the ‘Holy Catholic
Church.’ ”—Banner of the Gross.

WHAT IS CRISTIANITY?
BY THOMAS VOWLER SHORT.

One volume. \2mo. 50c.

“Indistinctness on religious subjects is a great evil, particularly to the young
;
but the-

ological clearness does not always lead to Christian edification and practical holiness. It
has been the endeavor of the author to combine distinct views on the leading tenets of
Christianity with that earnestness, without which religion is apt to dwindle into a mere
form. He has tried to place before his readers not words only, but ideas—to give them
that which might guide them in the path to heaven—to impress on them the fundamental
truths of our holy faith—and to point out how this faith should show forth its effects in tlie
occurrences of iifE.”



Yaluahle TYorJcs, puhlished hy Stanford Swords.

MELVILUS SERMONS.
SERMONS BY HENRY MELVILL, B.

Minister Camden Chapel, Camberwell, and late Fellow and Tutor of St. F Air's CoUegn,
Cambridge.

EDITED BY THE RT. REV. C. P. MTLVAINE, D. D.,
Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Ohit.

Four th edition. One volnme^ royjil Svo. $2,50.
This volume contains aXl the sermons yet published by the author, or Budor his sanc-

Uon. Many others have been published surreptitiotuly, which he never prepared for tho
press, and which ought not to be read as specimens of his preaching.

A strong attestation of the merit of these discourses is given in the fact, that floodea *s
is the market witli the immense variety of pulpit composition which the Loudon press
continually pours in, so that a bookseller can scarcely be persuaded to publish a volume
of sermons at his own risk, and such a volume seldom reaches beyond a single edition,
those of Melvill have passed through several, and do not cease to attract much attention.

“ Heartily do we admire the breathing words, the bold figures, the picturesque images,
the forcible reasouings, the rapid, vivid, fervid perorat>eus, of these discourses.”

—

British
Critic.

COMPANION FOR THE ALTAR,
OR,

WEEK’S PREPARATION
FOR THE

HOLY COMMUNION:
Consisting of a Short Exiilauation of the Lord’s Sujjper, and Meditat^.>ns nixl

Prayers proper to be used Before and During the Receivin,^ of
the Holy Communion; according to the Form prescribed

by the Protesljmt Episcopal Church iu the
United Stales of America.

BY JOHN HENRY HOBART, D. D..
Bishop of the Prot. Epis. Church in the State of New-York.

In one illume. l'2}no. 50c.

The wiiter has endeavored to keep in view two principles, which ho
deems most impoiTant and fundamental. Tliese principles are—That we are
saved from the guilt and dominion of sin by the divine merits and grace of
a crucified Redeemer; luul that the merits and grace of this Redeemer are
applied to the soul of the believer in the devout and humble participation of
the ordinances of the Clnirch. administered by a Priesthood who derive their
authority by regular transmission from Christ, the Divine Head ol the Church,
and the source of all power in it.”

Perhaps no other commendation of this work is needed than the fact,
that since its first publication, in 1804, it has successlnlly withstood the

competition of all other works on the same subject, has passed through almost

countless editions, and is still steadily increasing in the favor of the pious

And devout.

JERRAM ON INFANT BAPTISM.
CONVERSATIONS ON INFANT BAPTISM.

BY CHARLES JERRAM, VICAR OF CHOBHAM, SURRY.
One volume. 37c.

Theae Conversations furnish a complete view of the whole controversy, and a most €••

•losive defence of lufant Baptism.









Established *1, J9. 17§7,

STANFORD & SWORDS, 139, BROADWAY,
NEW-YORK,

Have on hand, as in former years, a large and varied collection of

books, in every department of literature, which are offered for sale at

the lowest market prices. From the long experience in the business

to which they have devoted themselves, and the high standing which

their house has maintained for more than half a century, the proprie.

tors are confident that facilities are secured to purchasers which can

be offered by few establishments in the trade. A continuance of the
patronage so long bestowed upon them, is respectfully solicited.

Orders from a distance for any book to be found in this or

the European markets, executed with the utmost punctuality.

devotional books.
The largest collection of works for private and family devotion, to be
met withriu any establisment in the country. Among the more re-
cent of their publications on these subjects, are the following:*

B ER R I A N .—Family and Private Prayers. By the Rev. William
Berrian, D, D., Rector of Trinity Church, New-York. 1 vol.
12 mo. large type, $1,00.

' TTHORNTTON.—Familv Prayers, and Prayers on the Ten
Commandments. To wlrich is added, a Family Commentary
upon the Sermon on the Mount, By the late Henry Thornton,
F-sq., M. P. Edited by the Right Rev. Manton Eastburn, D. D.,
Bishop of Massachusetts. 12mo. 75c.

A I N R I G HT.—An Order of Family Prayer for Every Day
in ihe Week, and for the commemoration of the Holy Days and
Seasons of the Church. Selected and arranged from the Bible,
the Liturgy, and various Books of Devotion. By the Rev. .Tona-
than M. Wainwright, D. D., Assistant Minister of Trinity Church,
New-York. 12mo. 75c.

Wll-BERFORCE.—Familv Prayers. by*the late William
Wilberforce, Esq. Edited by his Son, R<»bert Isaac Wilberforce,
M. A. To which are added. Prayers by the Rev. John Swete,
D. D. 18mo. 2oc.

BICKERSTEXH.—A Treatise on the Lord’s Supper: de-
signed as a Guide and Companion to the Holy Communion. * By
the Rev. Edward Bickersteth. Rector of Watton, Herts. Edited
and adaoted to the Services of the Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States. Bv the Rev. Lewis P. W. Balch, Rector of St
Bartholomew’s Church, New-York. 12mo.

'