This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized

by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

information in books and make it universally accessible.

https://books.google.com
 F

DITCHER v. DENISON

IS

ENGLAND v. ROME

A LETTER

TO

WILBRAHAM TAYLOR , Esq., &c.

BY

THE REV . H. J. DUNCOMBE , M.A. ,

RECTOR OF SIGSTON , YORKSHIRE .

LONDON :

WILLIAM E. PAINTER 342, STRAND .

1855 .

Price Eightpence ; or Six Shillings per Dozen for Distribution .

 It may be said that the indications of a tendency towards Romanism are
small and not worth notice. True ; yet they are progressive
I know these are small beginnings, and so is a flame in its incipient stages ;
Jet, if there is combustible matter to feed it, all that is dear to us may soon be
consumed . I would put forth my hand, therefore, to quench it, though I
myself should perish in the attempt. Surely there is reason ; for already has
this spirit and endeavour to “ unprotestantize" our beloved Church consumed
much of our sweet communion among the clergy, and impaired much of the
* * That our Church
confidence of the laity in our public institutions.
will eventually rise from her supineness in regard to Rome, I have little doubt :
nay, my faith is that she will cast off every garment spotted with idolatry as
she would a thing defiled ; and this, to my mind, is as sure as that we are
DESCENDANTS OF THE MARTYRS.— ( Philander Chase, Bishop of Illinois, 1843) .

HERE, at least, I am confident, that a resolute resistance is prepared for them .

This attempt to unprotestantize our Church will, I feel assured, unite us all in
defence of the principles of the English Reformation . I feel assured that all
who hear me now will be found upon this side in the coming struggle ; and
that, however determined these men may be still further to recede from them,
they will find you not less determined to cleave to, and to uphold , the principles
of the English Reformation . I might seem to have ample grounds for this
confidence in the bare fact that you are bound, by the strongest and most
solemn obligations, to maintain and defend those principles ; but, alas! so are
these men.— (Bishop of Ossory's Charge, 1842) .
 19A

ERRATA .
Page 13, line 30, for is, read are.
16, 19, for the, read this.
16, 9) 32 , for and goes, read and he goes.
17, ” 8, after why , insert a comma .
19, 39 , for eat of, read eat.
21 , 9, for touching, read teaching.
11 22 , 18, for addressed , read adduced .
25, 2, for animates, read animate.
25, 23, for Church , read Church's.
26 , 27, for limited , read timid .
29, 11, for as, read or .
30 , 3, for mounting, read counting.
31 , 24, for threw , read through
 portance
that Chu
viction is
that you
manting
i impelled
been hon
site char
addresses
challenge
defence i
Perceval
therefor
of the P:
lity. I
sel,f or 1
to the
which ]
imparti
 TO WILBRAHAM TAYLOR, ESQ.

Sigston, May 20th , 1855 .

MY DEAR SIR,
I last month received a letter relating to the
case of Archdeacon Denison, bearing your signature, together
with that of the Earl of Shaftesbury , the Hon . A. Kinnaird ,
and R. C. Bevan, Esq.
You justly say- " The question at issue is of such im
portance to the Church of England that every member of
that Church is deeply interested in the result." This con
viction is indelibly impressed on my own mind; and I beg
that you will receive this as an earnest that no effort shall be
wanting on my part in this unhappy crisis. I am the more
impelled to make my reply to theletter, with which I have
been honoured, public, because an appeal of an utterly oppo
site character, and founded upon views as opposite, has been
addressed to the public ; and a refutation of those views , if not
challenged, at least demanded. You summon us to the
defence of our Church. Under the same circumstances Mr.
Perceval, who opposed Mr. Gladstone at Oxford , and whom
therefore the public had regarded as an unequivocal defender
of the Protestantism of the Church of England, enjoins neutra
lity. I have no fear as to the effect of his appeal upon your
self, or those honoured individuals whose names are attached
to the letter I have received ; and, with the facts in view
which I am about to submit, I cannot but think that every
impartial Churchman must see how perfidiously Truth is
assailed, and come forward in ready acquiescence with your
appeal, as though it were an avowed member of the Church
of Rome who, in this instance, were undermining the
morality and falsifying the statements of our own .
Archdeacon Denison, amongst other dogmas, has stated
and re-stated, and, in defiance of Episcopal “ Monition ," has
re-affirmed , that the following is the doctrine of the Church
of England :- “ That to all who come to the Lord's table, to
“ those who eat and drink worthily, and to those who eat and
“ drink unworthily, the body and blood of Christ are given ; and
“ that by all who come to the Lord's table, by those who eat
“ and drink worthily, and by those who eat and drink un
“ worthily, the body and blood ofChrist are received ” (page 57).
A 2
 4

At page 174 , he says - and subsequently, I apprehend , to

any " Monition , ” and therefore giving his delinquency a more
aggravated and determined character—" I am bound to re
“ affirm that what I hold and teach is, that the body and
" blood of Christ” —the inward part or thing signified of the
blessed Sacrament— " is given to and is received unto con
“ demnation by the unbelieving communicant . "
At page 36, he had previously asserted “ that the bread
and the cup are identified, the manner of such identity being
hidden , but the fact being revealed, with the body and blood
of Christ.” And , at page 37, he proceeds to state, that there
are, he thinks, only two places of holy Scripture which may
at first sight appear to some to teach that those " who eat and
drink unworthily do not eat and drink the Res Sacramenti
the body and blood of Christ; " and he adds- " My argument
would be justly liable to evasiveness if I were to pass by these
without comment.” I beg you to keep all these assertions in
view , for they are in exact harmony with Rome's teaching,
and as explicitly repudiated by our Church.
The dogma contained in the first paragraph is that with
which a Bishop of our Church was brought in collision , as
part of the Archdeacon's teaching, and which that Bishop
has faithfully declared to be contrary to the doctrine of the
Church of England. The several dogmas thus propounded
we are confronted with ; and with these in view Mr. Perceval
enjoins neutrality.
In a letter addressed to the Editor of the Record, Feb. 21,
1855 , Mr, Perceval contends that the Archdeacon's teaching
“ must fall, pending the suit in this case, under the category
“ of High and Low Church ; ” and he states that, “ the judg
“ ment of the Commissioners appointed by the Archbishop of
“ Canterbury, in this case , amounts to a declaration in terms,
" that Ditcher v . Denison is not England v. Rome.” At the
same time, Mr. Perceval admits that.“ he would be ready to
* listen with all attention to an argument, from whatever
" quarter, which went to prove that, in urging neutrality on
“the National Club in this matter, he was urging nothing less
“than neutrality upon the great controversy with Rome;" and
" that, should he be unable fairly to meet the argument, he
“ would at once acknowledge that his proposition rested on an
“ overstrained and untenable interpretation of their pledge,
“ and apologize to his colleagues for having put forth a fallacy
though ever so unconsciously.”
I desire not to complicate either myself or the question with
the relation in which Mr. Perceval stands to the National
 5

Club ; but when, in the face of such an assault upon the

Church as Archdeacon Denison has been guilty of, and when
the members of that Church are called to defend it, it is due
to Truth that we should obey your call ; and, if it be forth
coming, summon the evidence in reply to Mr. Perceval, which
no single -minded Protestant can gainsay without denying the
evidence of his senses.
Now, facts shall be adduced which prove that this is not,
as Mr. Perceval contends, a controversy of doctrine between
clergymen of the Church of England ; but ENGLAND versus
ROME. It is, as your letter reminds us, " a question of such
“ importance to the very existence of the Church of England
" that every member of that Church is deeply interested in the
“ result :" it involves the issue whether,by her impartial fidelity
to “ her Confession of Faith ,” England , as a faithful witness,
shall remain a portion of the Catholic Church of Christ : or
whether, by her partiality, and neutrality, and faithlessness,
she shall merge both herself and Truth in Rome, whose only
Catholicity is that she is “ MYSTERY, THE MOTHER OF
THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH ."
If anything — whether lay apathy, or the love of a false and
temporal peace, or episcopal intervention, or alternate flattery
and vituperation - such as the Bishop of Oxford has thought
fit to pour on one faithful witness —tend to avert or suppress
the judgment which is sought, or the sympathies to which you
appeal, the leaven of the Archdeacon's teaching must as
effectually work the mysterious work of Rome as that of the
Pharisees did theirs ; and those " conspirators ” who denounce
the Reformation as a sin , and would put a “ non -natural '
meaning on our Articles, and who seek by every means, fur
tive or violent, to poison the public mind and unprotestantise
our Church , will see in the neutrality of each individual some
hopeful earnest of their triumph . It must be clearly under
stood that Archdeacon Denison is not charged with holding
or teaching the dogma of transubstantiation : his condemna
tion of it, therefore , is wide of the question, though it may
serve him as a blind. His condemnation of the doctrines
of Rome is nugatory ; for, as it will be seen, he holds a
part thereof. His consent, ex animo, to the Articles of our
Church, if not an act of honest ignorance, is at least self
delusion ; for he stands before us in Rome's antagonism ,
baving persuaded himself into a direct contradiction of some
of the propositions they enunciate . This is the charge against
him . Maintaining the opinions, and adopting the so -called
"hermeneutics" which he does, his escape from the avowal
 6

of transubstantiation or the corporal presence is a matter of

future controversy between himself and Cardinal Wiseman,
the author of the lectures “ On the Real Presence of the Body
and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist."
Mr. R. Wilberforce, whose work Archdeacon Denison quotes
with so much approval, and as of such high authority and as
evincing so much acumen , has not escaped this issue and
delusion ; and has now, in sad consistency with preliminary
error, led captive by his own sophistry, taken his part avowedly
with the great ecclesiastical adversary of Scripture and of the
“ United Church of England and Ireland."
Heedless of your summons, to yield to Mr. Perceval's in
junction in this crisis, and to cloak our ignorance, or apathy,
or partialities, under the name of impartial Churchmanship ,
is to allow the worst thing to steal upon us. It is, having
drunk of Rome's “ Cup of Fornication , " to slumber in dal
liance on her lap ; whilst, having detected the secret of our
power, she robs us of our glory and our strength ; and, having
put out our eyes, binds us hand and foot to do her service, tili
nothing shall remain, even should our strength in mercy be
restored, but deliverance from servitude and mockery, by an
effort which shall involve us in one common judgment with
Truth's enemies .
Looking to the character and effects of the Archdeacon's
doctrine, nothing worse can happen to our Church than to
allow him to remain a teacher and authority within her pale.
Dr. Wiseman expresses - his belief that more persons are
“ brought over to the communion of his own Church by
“ having their minds satisfied respecting the doctrine of tran
substantiation than by being convinced on any other point of
6 difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants." And
nothing can better serve Rome's purpose in this respect than
the teaching of Archdeacon Denison . He unsettles the mind
as to Protestant and Scriptural doctrine-he sophisticates,
and perplexes, and distorts, and perverts - he inculcates the
preliminary portion of Rome's errors as regards the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper - he engrafts it upon our Church in spite
of her distinct repudiation of it-he enforces it by the same
perverse Anti- Catholic and Anti - Protestant use and inter
pretation of Scripture adopted by Rome's cardinal- he eulo
gizes, as Scriptural and Catholic , the teaching of a late brother
Archdeacon , who, verifying the truth of the Cardinal's state
ment and the issue of such teaching, has found no satisfaction

* He tries to evade the latter, by “ teaching negations ," as he terms it.

 7

to his mind but in the doctrine of the “ corporal presence

and " transubstantiation ” —espousing, first,the error of Rome
which Archdeacon Denison inculcates ; and, now, all Rome's
falsehoods of earliest and most recent fabrication . We see,
then , the end of these things: let us not, therefore - to use
the language of the Archdeacon— “ make ourselves the victims
of Rome by our own acts ;" * neither let us allow ourselves to
be led blindfold by the Archdeacon , to be offered on the altar
of Rome's apostacy, as Archdeacons victimize themselves.
Inasmuch as the basis on which the Cardinal of Rome and
the Archdeacon of Bath and Wells rear their primary argu
mentation, with regard to the real presence, is the same, the
refutation of the one is the refutation of the other ; and as
Dr. Turton has said, in his “ Reply " to Wiseman's Lectures, "
so it must, alas ! be said of the Archdeacon's “ Sermons :
They appear, whatever the cause may be, to contain so
many false principles— so many erroneous statements- 50
“ much incorrect reasoning -- so many inconsequent conclu
“sions, that I was impelled by a sense of duty to point
" out the various transgressions in all these respects which
“ have occurred during my progress through the work ."
It is not my intention to point out all the Archdeacon's
transgressions in these respects ; nor is it needful to my pre
sent purpose. I beg to refer you , and all who may read this
letter, to Dr. Turton's “ Reply ” to Wiseman , as an equal re
futation of a vast portion of the Archdeacon's sophistry and
so- called Scripture proofs and interpretations. I have now
undertaken, simply as a matter of demonstration, and not of
argument, to lay before you facts which prove, beyond all
common sense question, that Ditcher v . Denison is England
v . Rome ; and which thus nullify the appeal of Mr. Perceval
and enforce your own . Mr. Perceval may, perhaps, in the
issue admit this ; though the contrary, I fear, is more than
probable : for such admission, to adopt his own illustration ,
must depend upon what he may mean by a Trapezium.t I
was not educated at Oxford ; and to Cambridge I, confessedly,

* Denison's Sermons, page 63.

+ The illustration alluded to occurs in Mr. Perceval's letter, of Feb. 21st,
1855, wherein, drawing from his store of academic recollections -- and speaking
of Orangemen, oranges, certain imputations of Orangeism , and his correspon
dent exposition of his meaning on the subject, in six lines brimtul of every
thing in the world most remote from Orangeism - he adds this enlivening
anecdote- " Much in the same way - in the age before mathematical class-lists
--a respondent in the Oxford schools, being asked to define a Trapezium,
“blandly replied to his questioner, — That, sir, must depend, partly, upon
“ what you call a Trapezium ? ' ”
 8

have not done justice : therefore, I cannot speak confidently

as to what Mr. Perceval may term a Trapezium . Perhaps,
he may thus designate what I was taught to name a
square ; and certain it is that Archdeacon Denison is able to
twist and turn either the one or the other with sueh inge
nious rapidity that he may give it the appearance of a circle
without affecting its proper form . But leaving Trapezia to
their fate, all I ask is the concession of one or other of these
which are equal to the same are equal
66axioms --that “things
to one another ; " or that “all right angles are equal to
“ each other .” We need not, then, trouble ourselves about
Trapezia. If Rome's teaching be of a specific kind and the
Archdeacon's of the same kind, then the Archdeacon's is
Rome's ; and if Rome stand, as regards the question before
us, in direct opposition to England , and the Archdeacon
stand in like antagonism , then is Ditcher v. Denison, England
v . Rome; and the question involves issues of such import
ance to the very existence of our Church that your appeal
ought to meet with a favourable and energetic reply from
every member of it. We meet on the very threshold of our
Church's initiatory teaching with the exclusion of the Arch
deacon's dogma.
Having been instructed that there are two parts in a
sacrament, “the outward visible sign ,” and “the inward
spiritual grace ;" and that “ the bread and wine is the out
“ ward part or sign in the Lord's Supper," " which the Lord
« has commanded to be received;" the catechumen is asked
_ " What is the inward part or thing signified ? " identified
with the inward spiritual grace — the only other part of a
sacrament; and instructed to reply, both as regards the
thing itself and those who receive it, answers, “ The body and
« blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and re
“ ceived by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." “ The body
" and blood of Christ, taken and received by the faithful,” is
the limited , Protestant, Scriptural language of our Church
“ The body and blood of Christ taken and received by all who
66
come to the Lord's table --by those who eat and drink
worthily, and by those who eat and drink unworthily *-the
" body and blood of Christ are received ,” is the additional
Romish dogma of the Archdeacon ; or, as he justly terms it,
my proposition . He subsequently , and through many
pages, sophisticates, till he persuades himself that, since all
* “ The bread and the cup ” is the scriptural language of our Church. “ The
body and blood of Christ ” is the substituted and Romish phraseology of the
Arehdeacon
 9

partake of “ one holy thing, ” in the Lord's Supper, therefore

that must be the body and blood of Christ; which is, in truth,
the inward spiritual grace, or part or thing signified ; and,
according to our Church's Catechism , in addition to the sign ,
the only other part of a sacrament, which ( Art. 28) is re
“ ceived and eaten by faith .” But the Archdeacon's sophistry
and contradictory addition to our Church's teaching must be
most apparent ; for if , with the outward sign, the unbelieving
receive the body and blood of Christ, then they receive both
parts of the sacrament— " the outward visible sign and the
inward spiritual grace ; " and this the unbelieving, without
faith , no less than the faithful, by faith. Here we find an
addition ; and though, with an effrontery peculiar to his party,
and a hardihood calculated to throw some off their guard, he
gives himself the credit of “ teaching the Primitive and Ca
tholic doctrine of the sacraments, wholly apart from the
" additions and omissions of the Church of Rome !!! " * We
have here a dogma involving, not only a Romish addition, as
to the recipients of the body and blood of Christ, but an
omission as to the “ mean whereby the body and blood is
“ received and eaten in the Supper."
Against this error of the Archdeacon, England of old con
tended, to the sufferance of death - for Rome to the death en
forced it . England resisted and rejected it, because her mar
tyrs, “ striving together for the faith once delivered to the
" saints, ” and animated by that regard for truth to which you
appeal as not extinct, could not be neutral ; and were thus
constrained to testify that the Word of Inspiration was
against it, whilst the verdict of the Primitive Church was in
agreement with their own . If we have, as a matter of fact,
proofto the effect that this error , both as regards the addition
and the omission which it involves, was insisted upon by the
disciples of the Papacy, and by them enforced to the very
death on those of our Church who sought to overcome “ BY
THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB and by the word of their testimony,
" and loved not their lives unto the death ” ( Rev. xii. 10 ) ,
then , not only have we evidence according to the preceding
axioms that the Archdeacon's proposition is that of the Pa
pacy, and that Ditcher v . Denison is England v . Rome; but we
have, my dear sir, a voice, as from the dead, enforcing your
appeal, and rebuking every temporizing and partial feeling
that inclines us to neutrality .
Those, however, who had no feelings responsive to such a

* Denison's Sermons, page 147.

 10

dictate, shall speak for our Church and against this advocate
within her pale of Rome's repudiated doctrine.
If any one will do Truth and our Church the justice of
turning to the writings of the Reformers, he will find the
whole question treated at length - the dogma of the reception
of the body and blood of Christ by all who eat the bread and
drink the wine, denied ; and the truth of the real presence
to the faithful, and to them alone, vindicated and stated in the
most afirmative terms ; for their clear perception of truth
and their realization of that presence freed them from the
necessity of teaching negations."
It is a popular misconception to suppose that the unscrip
tural teaching of Rome, as regards the Lord's Supper, is
limited to transubstantiation . This error, and its consequent
idolatry, together with that of the corporal presence, is in
point of fact the product of that now revived, founded on that
perverse and Romish interpretation of Scripture to which the
Archdeacon has recourse, and which he would have us adopt
under the sanction of Dr. Pusey.
Archbishop Cranmer, as we are aware, has written ex
pressly on the real presence ; and I might ask attention to
“ The crafty and sophistical cavillation , devised by M. Stephen
6 Gardiner, against the true and godly doctrine of the most
" holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ” -called by
him , “ an explication and assertion thereof ” —with an answer
to the same, by Cranmer ; but Mr. Walter, of Hasilbury
Bryan, has already done this effectively, though briefly.
would, therefore, appeal to other evidence.
Becon, the Archbishop's chaplain, in his “ Catechism on
the Sacraments," writes thus :
“ FATHER — Besides these abuses, have there not also crept
6 in certain errors into the Church of Christ about the matter
“ of the Lord's Supper through the Papists ?
“ Son–Yes, verily, divers; but three principally.
“ FATIER — Which be they?
“ Son —The first is the doctrine of transubstantiation.
“ The second is the doctrine of the corporal presence of
“ Christ in the sacrament, as He hanged on the cross. The
“ third is, that the GODLESS and wicked people, RECEIVING THE
SACRAMENT, EAT and DRINK the BODY and BLOOD OF
6 CHRIST NO LESS THAN THE GODLY AND FAITHFUL PEOPLE ." *
This third error is the Romish doctrine, which the Arch
deacon of Bath and Wells revives t ; seeks to obtrude upon
* Becon's Works, page 260. Parker Society Edition.
+ Denison's Sermons - pp. 18, 57, 174 .
 11

our supposed ignorance or apathy ; and , despite such episcopal

" monition ” as he may have received , now re-affirms. Thus
far, then, we see that no one can deny Denison to be Rome,
save he who refuses his assent to the two axioms required .
If we turn also to the sentence against the martyr Bradford,
we find him condemned for teaching, contrary to Rome (and
to Archdeacon Denison ), that “ Christ is in the sacrament of
“ the altar by and to faith, and none otherwise ; also, that in
“ the sacrament of the altar is not the body of Christ, except
“ it be taken, and received and eaten,* and that Christ is
present in the sacrament when the sacrament is duly ad
“ ministered by faith , To faith, and in faith , and none other
“ wise : also, that it is not the body of Christ but to him that
6 receiveth it, and that an evil man doth not receive it in
“ forma panis.” +
In opposition to this, and in literal accordance with the
teaching and requirements of the Church of Rome, we have
now an Archdeacon teaching, and requiring the ministry of
the Church of England to acknowledge and teach, that " the
“ body and blood of Christ are really present in the consecrated
“ bread and wine ;" 1 - and “ that by all who come to the
“ Lord's table , by those who eat and drink unworthily the
“ body and blood of Christ are received " - " that they are
identified with the bread and cup," and " eaten ,” | “ that
" there are only two places of holy Scripture which may at
first sight appear to some to teach that those who eat and
“ drink unworthily do not eat and drink the Res Sacramenti ,
" the inward part or thing signified — the body and blood of
“ Christ ; 1-and that WORSHIP is due to the REAL though in
“ visible and supernatural presence of the body and blood of
“ Christ in the holy eucharist UNDER the FORM of bread and
“ wine ; ” or, as his proposition states it, “ in the consecrated
66 bread and wine ” ! ***
The Catholic doctrine, thus witnessed to by Bradford, is
that which , from the time of the Reformation , has by Papists
and their acolytes been termed , “ A denial of the real pre
“ sence ” — “ a making none at all ;" or 66 Christ none otherwise
27
“ present than He is present in His word when preached ;'
but it makes that presence a reality which the Archdeacon's
vague and contradictory teaching renders a wordy fiction .
Let any read the beautiful sermon of the martyr on the sacra
ment of the Lord's Supper ; and by its light he may, perhaps,

• Bradford's Works, page 586. + Ditto 585.

I Denison's Sermons , page 18.
§ Ditto, 36 . H Ditto, 37, 38. 1 Ditto, 81 . ** Ditto, 81 .
 12

be taught to realize, as Bradford did- (and as our Church

teaches every communicant to realize, and “ feed by faith
upon " ) -- that blessed presence which the Archdeacon's
teaching reduces to a Popish figment and contradiction . No
sermons more cloudy, more savouring of the head than of the
heart, more replete with affirmatives and negations, than the
Archdeacon's, were ever compiled or written : in fact, they
are sermons, not on the real presence, but an attempt to
realize that Romish summons addressed some time ago by
one of the Tractarian party to the clergy of the Church of
England— “ Why shrink from asserting that you can make
“ the body and blood of Christ ?” *
But to proceed : with the above evidence - that the dogma
is Rome's, not England's — we have transmitted to us a con
versation between a Romish dignitary of the same position in
the Church as Archdeacon Denison himself, and we find that
the latter is all but in name the former ; and by consequence,
according to the axion , “ that things which are equal to the
66
same are equal to one another,” Denison is Rome ; and, if
“ all right angles are equal to one another," no sophistry can
prove Denison , as regards this dogma of the “ reception ," &c.,
called by him the “real presence,” to be anything but Rome.
Archdeacon Harpsfield , in 1554, says to Bradford
“ Why, you are not condemned therefore only."
“ Yes (quoth I, Bradford ) ; that am I, and because I deny
“ that wicked men do receive Christ's body .”
“ No ( quoth he) ; you agree not with us in the presence,
nor in nothing else .”
“ How you believe ( quoth I) you know ; for my part, I
“ confess a presence of whole Christ, God and man , to the faith
" of the receiver .”
“ No (quoth he ), you must believe a real presence in the
“ sacrament."
“ In the sacrament ? ( quoth I). No, I will not shut Him
up, nor tie Him to it, otherwise than faith seeth and per
“ mitteth . If I should include Christ's presence in the sacra
66
ment, or tie Him to it otherwise than to the faith of the
receiver, then the wicked man would receive Him ; which I
“ do not, nor will not, believe, by God's grace .”
“ More pity (quoth he) ; but a man may easily see you
“ make no presence at all, and therefore youagree not therein
66 with us. "

* I wish I could remember the author of this challenge ; but I cannot lay my
hand upon the reference . It may, however, be relied upon as a fact.
+ For denying Transubstantiation .
 13

* I confess a presence ( quoth I ), and a true présence, but

" to the faith of the receiver . "
* What ! ( quoth one that stood by) -of Christ's very body
66 who died for us? ”
“ Yea (quoth I ) ; even of whole Christ, God and man, to
the faith of him that receiveth it. "
Why (quoth Master Harpsfield ); this is nothing else but
“ to exclude the omnipotency of God and all kind of miracle
“ in the sacrament. "
“ No ( quoth I) ; I do not exclude His omnipotency, but
you rather do it; for I believe that Christ can accomplish
“ His promise, the substance of the bread being there still, as
s well as the accidents ; which you believe not. And (quoth I)
“ I count it a great miracle that common bread should be
“ made a spiritual bread — that is, a bread ordained of God,
not for the food of the body, but rather for the food of the
“ soul ; for, when we come to the sacrament, we come not
" to feed our bodies, and therefore we have but a little piece
“ of bread ; but we come to feed our souls with Christ by
“ faith, which the wicked want ; and therefore they receive
nothing but panem Domini ( the bread of the Lord ) as Judas
“ did ; and not panem Dominum (the bread, the Lord ), as the
“ other apostles did .”
“ The wicked (quoth Master Harpsfield ) DO RECEIVE the
“ very body of Christ ; but not the grace of His body. "
“ No ( quoth I) ; they receive not the body ; for Christ's
body is no dead carcass: he that receiveth it receiveth the
“ Spirit, which is not without grace, I ween ." *
The above evidence shows not only that the views and
language of the Archdeacon of 1554 is in exact agreement
with that of the Archdeacon of 1854, as regards the propo
sition against which Bishop Spencer and the Martyr Bradford
alike protest ; but that after the lapse of three hundred years,
in the self -same year of this century, the Romish views re
specting the body and blood of Christ being in the sacra
ment “ and received by all ” — “ eaten and drunk by the
“ unbelieving communicant, ” as well as “ by the faithful ”
“ the very body of Christ, but not the grace of his body," are
revived ; and the Romish spirit arises, not alone from without,
but from within , to resume her conflict with the Church of
England.
What a miserable and insulting appeal is it to the assumed
weakness of “ the United Church of England and Ireland, " or

* Bradford's Works. pp. 511, 512.

 14

to our ignorance, that Archdeacon Denison should now write

as though it were something novel and unjust that legal pro
ceedings should be instituted against him ; “ that now , in the
“ fourth century of the Reformed Catholic Church of Eng
“ land, it should be proposed to inflict upon one of her priests
a public penalty, because he holds and teaches the Primitive
“ and Catholic doctrine of the sacraments wholly apart from
- the additions and omissions of the Church of Rome !" It is
just, because now, in the fourth century of the Reformed
Church of England , a priest within her pale does not hold
and teach the Primitive and Catholic doctrine of the sacra
ments wholly apart from the additions and omissions of Rome,
that it is proposed to inflict a public penalty upon him ; and
truth, justice, religion, and piety demand it. · The question
" at issue , " as you urge, “ is of such importance to the very
" existence of the Church of England that every member is
“ interested in the result.” None, I trust , will be wanting to
your call, nor to the Church and her Confession of Faith , in
this marvellous exigency. I am delighted to find that the
National Club recognises such cases , as the present , as de
manding our special notice. In its tenth annual report, just
issued , I read “ Against the open enemies of these "-(our
country and the scriptural purity of the Protestant faith of
our Established Church )—“ We are prepared in all confidence
“ to contend against the more insidious practices and in
66
trigues of those who within her fold nevertheless are not of
it ; who would avail themselves of their position there to
“ poison her faith and undermine her foundations : against
“ These we have need of yet deeper, keener vigilance, and of
“ earnest and continual prayer ; and, while allowing in all
“ Christian charity the largest latitude to all true brethren of
“ the faith , to cease not from all legitimate endeavours, until
“ these be cast out of that Church which they belie and would
“ betray.”
But to return - Surely, my dear sir, with the martyr before
us, whose language is so exactly coincident with that of the
twenty -eighth Article, and the express proposition of the
twenty -ninth — with the words also of these two Archdeacons,
so literally coincident, under our eyemit must require the
denial that “ all right angles are equal to one another," and
" that things which are equal to the same are equal to one
another, ” to maintain that Ditcher v . Denison is not Eng
land v . Rome ; and that this case comes under the 6 category
“ of High and Low Church , and is to be treated as a con
troversy between “ Clergymen of our Church . ” It involves
 15

no less than “ the great controversy with Rome on the sacra

" ment of the Lord's Supper."
We will , however , proceed to other evidence which is de
manded .
With Rome's new and Anti-Catholic doctrine, her old
charge has been revived ; and it has been urged that, to " call
“ the sacrament Christ's body, and to make none other
presence of Christ than by grace, or spiritually and to faith
" ( which is of things hoped for and of things which to the
bodily senses do not appear)—is to make no presence at
“ all ;" but, as the martyr says, so say we— “ To grant a
presence to faith is not to make no presence, but to such as
“ know not faith .” And “ this," as he adds, adducing the
evidence , “ the fathers taught, affirming Christ to be present
" by grace : and therefore not only a signification , but also an
“ exhibition and giving of the grace of Christ's body--that- is,
“ of life and of the seed of immortality, as Cyprian writeth :”
in addition to whom Bradford adduces the testimony of thirteen
other early fathers .
The Archdeacon of Bath and Wells would fain persuade us
that he is now restoring the Primitive and Catholic, not the
new and Roman, doctrine, respecting the real presence and
the reception of the body and blood of Christ by the unworthy
communicant ; and, in furtherance of this delusion , he says
that “ the habit appears unsafe of referring, for conclu
“ sions upon controverted points, rather to the statements
" of individual doctors of our Church than to the holy Scrip
tures, to the witness of the Primitive and Catholic Church ,
" and to the formularies of our own Church ; ” and he adds—
“ It seems not uncommonly to be assumed amongst us that a
point is settled by quoting one or more passages from one or
“ more of our great divines ;” + -- and in the next paragraph
he endeavours to induce the impression that he, with a pre
eminent ingenuousness, appeals to those witnesses whose
testimony others overlook or evade. But how stands the
fact ? Why, thus—The Reformers of our Church ever refer
to the holy Scriptures as the fountain and word of truth , and
to the interpretations of the early fathers as harmonizing
with their own . To adduce, therefore, the evidence of the
Reformers, whom I cite, is, in point of fact, to appeal to
Scripture teaching and to the harmony of Catholic interpre
tation . Bradford, whom I have adduced, is an instance, no
less than Becon . Each of these quotes most copiously from

• Bradford's Works, p . 97. + Denison's Sermons, p. 172.

 16

Scripture in evidence of the doctrine which they receive from

Inspiration : each of them heaps quotation upon quotation
from the writers of the Primitive Church to show that they
are not inculcating new doctrine.
Speaking both of the teaching of Inspiration, and of the
views of the early fathers, Becon writes thus - Father : “Prove
me, by the word of God , that the body of Christ, although
glorified and immortal, is not in divers places at once.
" What say the eminent fathers of Christ's Church ? ” & c.
“ Let me hear some of their sayings, for it delighteth me
greatly to hear the doctrine and consent of the eminentfathers,
thatwe may boldly say, our doctrine is both grounded of the
word of God, and also confirmed of the old writers.” +
This process he adopts as regards all the three errors of the
Church of Rome relating to the Lord's Supper, not evading
that so literally and exactly revived , stated , restated , and, in de
fiance of such episcopal monition as he may have been sub
jected to, reaffirmed by Archdeacon Denison.
He says respectingthe Romish teaching :
“ Son - The PAPISTS teach that not only the faithful and
godly, but also the unfaithful and wicked , eat and drink IN
the Sacrament the body and blood of Christ.
“ FATHER — And what sayest thou, my son, to this their
doctrine ? Is it to be allowed ?
“Son -Nothing less ; for as much as it is contrary both to
the doctrine of Christ and to the teaching of the ancient
fathers.
“ FATHER - Let me hear it proved, by the word of God,
that the wicked and ungodly eat not theflesh of Christ, nor
drink his blood .” 1
Scripture proof is then adduced, with a comment from
Augustine, and goes on to say
“FATHER—These words be very plain, and cannot be
“ justly denied ; of the which we learn,truly, that not the un
faithful, but the faithful -- not the wicked, butthe godly -dis
posed only -- eat and drink the body and blood of Christ. Not
withstanding, I would also in this behalf gladly hear the
“ judgment of the ancient fathers and old writers, that we
may be well assured , even by their testimony also, that this
“ is no new doctrine, to teach that the godly only eat Christ
" and not the wicked, the faithful and not the unfaithful, the
6 members of Christ and not the members of Satan ."

* Becon's Catechism of the Sacraments, page 276. + Ditto p. 272.

# Ditto p. 291. § Ditto p. 292.
 17

He next adduces the testimony of the early Church, which

every member of our own may study with profit. He then
shows that the reception and eating of Christ, as regards the
unbelieving, is limited to the bread and wine; and proceeds,
after explaining what it is to eat and receive Christ spiritually,
to say 66 OTHER EATING AND RECEIVING OF CHRIST THERE
77
IS NONE. '
“ FATHER—Why is not the very natural body of Christ
“ eaten of the communicants, both faithful and unfaithful, at
“ the Lord's Supper ?
“ Son — Christ is only received and eaten of the faithful
" communicants : the unfaithful receive not the body and blood
of Christ, but the sacraments of the same only : yea, and
" that unto their damnation.” (1 Cor. xi.* )
Let it be recalled to mind, ere we proceed, that Archdeacon
Denison, in contradiction to the doctrine of Scripture and the
teaching of the Primitive Catholic Church , no less than our
own , holds and teaches that, “ by all who come to the Lord's
“ table, by those who eat and drink unworthily, the body and
“ blood of Christ are received ; ” +-and that “ those who eat
" and drink unworthily, eat and drink thé body and blood of
“ Christ .” ! No wonder then if, “ in the fourth century of the
“ Reformed Catholic Church of England,” the infliction of a
penalty on a priest of our Church is demanded, because, for
the first time, since the days of Archdeacon Harpsfield, he, an
Archdeacon within her pale, revives this Romish Anti-Catho
lic doctrine - he, a late examining chaplain of a Bishop of our
Church, inculcates it upon the ministry.
“ The mean whereby ( says our 28th Article) the body and
“ blood of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.”
“ The body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken
“ and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper,” incul
cates the Church's Catechism .
The express proposition of the 29th Article is, “ Of the
" wicked, which eat not the body of Christ in the use of the
Lord's Supper ."
But ( says Archdeacon Denison) subscribe all these afir
matively, and inculcate the negation of each. Truth and
honour permit it !! Scripture and morality require it !!
There is no addition or omission of the Church of Rome in
volved in the process !! It is only the inclusio veri !!
Why, my dear sir, to say nothing of the moral perceptions
and sensibilities of the faithful, nay, of the honourable mind,

* Becon’s Catechism , p. 295. + Denison's Sermons, p. 57. # Ditto p. 37.

B
 18

any one must see that this archdeaconal requirement in

volves the enshrinement of one great and enormous false
hood in the sanctuary . It must be plain to the outward eye
of man that Archdeacon Denison is Rome-Rome in spirit
and in doctrine no less than Harpsfield ; and that this case
is not a matter between “ Clergymen of the Church of Eng
“ land , ” but that Ditcher v. Denison is England v. Rome.
It is wonderful that this miserable imposture, this Dagon
idol, has stood so long upon its feet, and not fallen prostrate
long ago, a mutilated witness against itselt, in the presence of
the ark which has been entrusted to the keeping of our
Church :: or, is it, my dear sir, that the latter has been re
moved, and there is nothing to clash with the presence of the
former ? ( Isaiah lix . 4 and 14 ).*
“ The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England : an Ex
position of the Thirty -nine Articles, by Thomas Rogers, Chap
lain to Archbishop Bancroft,” may be referred to no less than
such writers as those already quoted. The Articles of our
Church, indeed, speak so plainly and unequivocally that all
who read must understand their literal meaning, and can hold
no other, unless they are the victims of Romish influence and
attachment ; and, having drunk of the cup of her fornications,
seek to overthrow the reason and the morality of others with
the same poison. I mention the exposition of our confession
of faith , by Rogers, because this is again to refer, not to " an
individual doctor of our Church ” -not “ to one or more
passages of a great divine in settlement of this question,
“ rather than to the authority ofinspiration ” —but to accumu
lated Scripture evidence ; and because the adversaries also of
" note and name, which from the Apostles' days and Primitive
66 Church hitherto have crossed or contradicted the said
“ Articles in general: or any particle, or proposition arising
“ from any of them in particular hereby are discovered, laid
open, and confronted.” This Chaplain of a former Arch
bishop of our Reformed Catholic Church brings the authority
of Scripture and the judgment of the Catholic Church in evi
dence against the late Chaplain of the late Bishop of Bath and
Wells ; and, leaving to the impartial Churchman no other con
elusion than that the Archdeacon of 1554 and the Archdeacon
of 1854 are one, confirms the verdict that Ditcher v. Denison
is England v. Rome.

* None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth : they trust in vanity
and speak lies; they conceive mischief and bring forth iniquity. And judge
mentis turned away backward and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen
in the street and equity cannot enter.
---

19

The proposition of the 29th Article being “ of the wicked

which eat not the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's
Supper ,” the Q. E. D. to which the Archdeacon leads us
is, therefore, the “ wicked do eat the body and blood of Christ;"
and there are only two passages in Scripture, which may at
first sight appear to teach that they who receive unworthily
do not eat and drink the Res Sacramenti — the inward part
and the thing signified, the body and blood of Christ. How
entirely must the Archdeacon calculate upon our mental be
wilderment or utter want of integrity ! In spite, however, of
all the subtleties employed, the learning and the scholastic
interlardings, the sophistry of the Archdeacon will not accom
plish his purpose, I should trust.
I confess, when I contemplate the contradictions into which
the Archdeacon would lead us,and the disgraceful falsification
of our Church's teaching which he would have us perpetrate,
all is so entirely Rome in spirit, and in doctrine, and in prac
tise, that, with Dr. Turton, I am compelled to say, “ I am
" thrown into a state of perplexity. I involuntarily begin to
muse on the motives which compel men to action, and the
66
principles by which their conduct is directed. Here is mis
representation obvious to a child with regard to an Arti
“ cle which has been subscribed , and which must have been
“ read with some attention . Did the misrepresentation arise
“ from inadvertency or from design ? I know not. Happy
" at all events is the man whose cause needs not the support
“ of the kind of criticism employed ” * by Archdeacon Denison.
The proposition of the Article being, that “ the wicked do
“ not eat the body of Christ in the use of the sacrament, ” it
is then set forth in the Article what the wicked and those
void of a lively faith do eat, whilst with their teeth they press
the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ; and it defines
this, again, to be the sign or sacrament of so great a thing, to
their condemnation . Yet the Archdeacon would persuade us,
by a sophistical cavillation without a parallel - till Oxford
came forward, drunk with the cup of Rome, to lure us from
our fidelity to like perfidy with herself — that the teaching of
our Church is that the wicked and those void of faith, all
who partake of the sign or sacrament, receive and eat of the
body and blood of Christ; limited as is this act in our Cate
chism to the faithful - an act, which as our reformers taught
in harmony with the Primitive Church, the Articles of our

* " The Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist considered in Reply to Dr.
Wiseman's Argument from Scripture.” By Thomas Turton, D.D. &c. , pp. 20, 21.
B 2
 20

own , and in opposition to Rome, “ the wicked being void of

faith ” are incapable of, and the faithful only capable of, the
mean whereby the body and blood of Christ are received and
eaten in the Supper being “ Faith . " *
Yet Archdeacon Denison lauds himself as a priest of the
Church of England persecuted for " unreservedly teaching
“ the doctrine of the sacraments wholly apart from the addi
tions and omissions of the Church of Rome!” What mar
vellous effrontery ! He, forsooth , is the man that “ teaches not
negations - he who subscribes and thus denies our Articles !
His is no vague and indistinct Theology, in itself an evil of
“ great extent and magnitude.” He is the true son of the
Church of England . He is the teacher, who, " when men's
“ minds are craving to be satisfied as to the teaching of the
“ Church of England, when it is also true men's minds must
“ be satisfied lest a worse thing happen to them , shall save
us from being by our own act the victims of Rome .” Well
indeed may he ask , “ When shall such folly cease ? " And
when, I would ask, shall we vindicate Truth, not only doctri
nal but practical Truth , in singleness of mind and heart, and
with the same unfaltering fidelity as did our forefathers, who,
by God's blessing, asserted and manifested its power at the
period of the Reformation ?
With our Bibles still speaking and acknowledged as the
word of God with the evidence which I adduce and the ex
amples of those before us who, though dead, still speak
I would indeed , without hesitation , enforce your call, by one
portion of Archdeacon Denison's summons, to the discharge
of that duty which fidelity requires and faith shall fit us for.
May God who gave us the will to vow, keep us from all de
lusion, wherehy wecome to forget what we have vowed. For
" to shrink from handling the Truth, to set our hearts first
upon this world's peace, to have any fear for the issue to the
“ Church of God, if we will give to these things their real
name, is to wait upon man, but not upon God; to love the
“ world rather than God ; to speculate upon contingencies of
“ human infirmity, and to rely upon arrangements and con
“ trivances of human wisdom — BUT TO LACK FAITH .” +
This should be the more deeply impressed upon every
impartial Churchman,” because the writer himself affords à
solemn illustration of the facility with which delusion steals
over the mind, and how sternly it “ holds him fast ” who
parleys with it. As regards Archdeacon Denison, whether he

* Article XXVIII . + Denison's Sermons, p. 48.

 21

be the victim of his own sophistry, or of dogmatic pugnacity,*

this at least is certain- Whatever sophistry may say, our
Church did not draw up one Article asserting that “ the mean
whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the
" Supper is Faith , ” intending thereby to teach that “ the
body and blood of Christ ” is received and eatent by the
“ unbelieving communicant." ! Neither did the clergy of the
“ United Church of England and Ireland " subscribe the Arti
cle, as touching this negation and contradiction , any more
than the Reformers ; and, certain it is, our Church did not
draw up an Article, whatever sophistry may say, “ of the
“ wicked which eat not the body of Christ in the use of the
“ Lord's Supper ,” to inculcate that they do eat the body of
Christ in the sacrament ; neither did the single -minded of the
clergy subscribe the Article, as teaching such negation, any
more than those I have quoted as the faithful upholders of
our Church's doctrine. And I trust they will no more
acquiesce in the Romish dogma urged upon us by Archdeacon
Denison than did the true sons of the Church , three hundred
years ago , when Archdeacon Harpsfield inculcated the same .
Common sense, no less than common honesty, forbid it.
Rome's delusion warps the mind of Archdeacon Denison ; and ,
wanting not in the attribute of determined tenacity of purpose ,
he would hold it as fast as it liolds him .
We need not inquire how the Archdeacon fills up, to the
satisfaction of his own mind, the interval between the affirma
tions of our Church and the direct negations which , teaching
himself, he would have her espouse . It may be ingenious - it
may seem learned —but a child , reared in the healthy atmo
* Of the Archdeacon it must be said, as of Johannes Scotus* — “ Vir ingenii
sophistici et maxime pugnacis." ( " Exegesis-De Sacra Coena.” — Joachim ,
p. 90. )
• [In illustration of the fact that Archdeacon Denison's disclaimer of the
dogma of transubstantiation does not exonerate him from the charge of in
culcating the errors of Rome, with regard to the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, I may quote from Becon, “ That subtile doctor, Johannes Scotus,
otherwise called Duns, one of the subtilest disputers and cbief champions
among the Papists, freely confesseth that the article of transul:stantiation is
neither expressed in the creed of the Apostles, nor yet in the other ancient
and old creeds,” &c.] (Becon , 268).
+ Denison's Sermons, p. 38 .
# Ditto p. 174- " Unto condemnation " is interposed hy the Archdeacon .
“ The author is subtile but not sagacious ; he is dexterous but not circum
“ spect ; he is learned after the manner of a controversialist, not after the manner
“ of a student. It would have afforded me real pleasure if I could have
“ pointed out a single instance of fair, manly investigation in the course of
“ his lectures ; I sincerely regret that he has not enable me to pay him
“ the compliment ” (Turton p. 322) . So speaks Dr. Turton of Cardinal Wise
man . It would be well if every reader of this letter would read that reply
no less than the Archdeacon's sermons : he would then be able to determine
how applicable it is to the Romanist within our Church.
 22

sphere of our Church , must see that it cannot be Truth. The

Article is England's - the negation of the Archdeacon is
Rome's — the case is England v. Rome.
I would add a few words as to the identity of one portion of
the Archdeacon's process of argumentation with that of
Rome's. He stands in the same antagonistic position to the
the Church of England in this instance as that apostacy
does. And how does he arrive there ? He takes his footing,
in the first instance, upon the same ground. He has the
effrontery, to write-- " It has been attempted, in the face of the
testimony of the Church Catholic, to assign a figurative
“ character to the words of institution, of the same kind to
" that truly assigned to other passages of Holy Seripture, in
“ which our Blessed Lord is spoken of under figures, and by
" this process to explain away the mystery of the real
presence.” But, no : let all read Dr. Turton's reply to
Wiseman on this Romish view of the language of Scripture :
let all ponder well the texts addressed by each of the Romish
advocates, with the reply of theDean of Peterborough, to those
passages of Scripture - he will not then wonder, though the
Archdeacon deny the dogma of transubstantiation , that he
stands in his present antagonism to the Church of England.
He will then be able to determine what confidence can be
placed in the individual who has presented these sermons to
the world .
“ The Protestant, " as Dr. Turton reminds us, " holds that the
se words are to be taken figuratively ; so that, what was before
“ simply bread , became the symbol of the body of Christ." *
So speaks the late honest Regius Professor of Divinity in the
University of Cambridge, giving utterance to the consistent
teaching of our Church ; and, as regards also the voice of the
Primitive Catholic Church on this point, I again refer to
Becon's Catechism. He writes thus :
“ FATHER - It is then no proper, but a figurative speech ,
when Christ called the bread His body.”
" Son — You say truth, ” &c.
Scripture evidence is then adduced, and the views of the
writers of the early Church . After which he proceeds
“ FATHER— These things, which thou hast alleged out of
" the ancient writers, are so evident and plain that no man
66
GO can, with a good conscience (except he wilfully resist the
truth ), deny that these words of Christ, . This is my body,
« « This is my blood,' are figuratively to be understood, and

* Dr. Turton's Reply, &c., p. 259.

 23

“ not so grossly as the words sound ; yea, and that so much

“ the more, because, if they should literally be taken , they
“ should utterly dissent from many other texts of the Holy
“ Scriptures, which most evidently declare that Christ, as
“ concerning His corporal presence, is not in earth , but in
“ heaven only, there shall remain until the day of judgment.
“ Notwithstanding, I should be glad to hear how the ancient
- fathers of Christ's Church have understood and taken these
“ words of Christ, that by this means leaving error and em
bracing truth , I might henceforth walk with a quiet con
“ science in this behalf, and no more be carried about with
every wind of doctrine. For it much grieveth me to see in
“ these our days such and so great dissension to be raised up
of Satan among men about this sacrament of the body and
“ blood of Christ ; which holy and heavenly sacrament the
“ Lord ordained to be, not only a pledge of His love towards
us, but also a sure and an unloosable bond of hearty love
" and singular good will, which we that possess Christ,
and are partakers of those holy mysteries, ought to have
“ and continually nourish among ourselves — all contention,
“ strife, debate, envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness,
6 utterly laid aside and cast away.
" Son How the ancient fathers took and understand these
“ words of Christ, This is my body ,' . This is my blood ,' it
may easily be known by their own writings.”
He then quotes the testimony of “ Tertullian, Ambrose,
" Jerome, Austin, Cyprian , Hilarius, Petrus de Natalibus,
“ Bernard , Beda, Christianus Druthmarus , Rabanus Maurus,
Isidorus," and proceeds
“ FATHER— These words of the ancient fathers are so open ,
plain, and evident, that no man can with a good conscience
deny but that these words, “ This is my body,' • This is my
blood ,' are not carnally but spiritually, not properly but
66
figuratively, not naturally but significatively, to be under
6 stood .
6 But forasmuch as all these testimonies which thou hast
“ hitherto alleged are borrowed out of the Latin writers, I
6 desire also to know and understand the minds of some
“ Greek authors, and by this means learn the truth of God's
word , notonly of the Latin, but also of the Greek fathers ;
" that I, being confirmed through their authority in the true
“ understanding of Christ's words concerning His holy Supper,
may from henceforth eschew falsehood and lies, and embrace
" the truth of God's most holy word , and continue in the same
" unto the end.
 24

“ Son -- God give us all grace so to do !

Origin is then quoted , and Chrysostom , Theodoretus, Epi
phanius, Cyril, Theophilus Alexandrinus, Gregorius Nazian
zenus , Athanasius, Theophylact.
“ These aforesaid authorities alleged out of the books of the
“ ancient learned fathers, both of the Latin and Greek Church ,
“ do evidently declare that these words of Christ, “ This is
my body,' • This is my blood ,' are spiritually and figuratively
to be understood, and that they themselves did always so
“ take and expound them ; and in that sense their words re
“ mained in the Church of Christ a long time after, even unto
" the time of Pope Nicholas the Second, which lived in the
63
year of our Lord 1058."
Becon then observes upon the fact that the abandonment
of the figurative interpretation had opened the way for the in
cursion of the several errors of Rome on the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper ; and adds
6 This wicked doctrine of Christ's bodily presence in the
“sacrament hath so prevailed that few have espied the truth
CG
6 of GOD'S HOLY WORD IN THIS BEHALF : which thing is the
ALONE OCCASION that many even at this present day remain
“ and abide still in their old error and blindness.”
He then proceeds
“ FATHER— God have mercy on us and bless us, and lighten
“ His countenance upon us , that we here on earth may know
“ His ways and His saving health among all nations.
« Son - Amen ! " *
What verdict then , my dear sir, with these facts before us ,
must we give, when an Archdeacon , the late Examining Chap
lain of a recently deceased Bishop of the United Church of
England and Ireland, now in the fourth century of the Re
formation, rises up to reprove that Church , and tells her ,
with such barefaced effrontery— “ It has been attempted, in
" the face of the testimony of the Church Catholic, to assign
“ a figurative character to the words of institution ; " and
that “ He holds and teaches the Primitive and Catholic doc
“ trine of the sacraments, wholly apart from the additions
66 and omissions of the Church of Rome :" and now calls
upon the clergy who have subscribed the Articles of our
Church as though they could in truth and honor inculcate
“ His proposition ?" England can give but one answer when
SOPIIISTRY has done HER WORST , and that verdict will be
DITCHER v . DENISON is ENGLAND V. ROME .

* Becon's Cathism, pp. 280-290.

 25

If, my dear sir, we have but eyes, together with that com
mon sense and honesty which animatesthe impartial Church
man when in the jury -box of his country he takes the word
of God in his hand , and swears that he will give a verdict ac
cording to the evidence before him , it can be no other. We
need not empannel a jury of theologians : neither does the
question involve the painful canvassing of the mysteries of
our most holy Faith ; but the simple fact - Does or does not
the teaching of the Archdeacon accord with the Articles he
subscribed ? There are, as Pascal reminded Rome, questions
of theologians which are not questions of theology, and this
is one which involves not the discussion of the latter , but the
simple fact - Denison,
Is by his own showing, of Rome or of
England ? for England's affirmations cannot, to Englishmen ,
be negations. An honest common jury of Englishmen can
decide the issue as easily and as righteously as that “ sa
cred synod ” which Archdeacon Denison would convene, but
from which he reserves to himself the right of appeal; *
though whither he tells us not, so that we are left under the
inevitable conclusion that it must be to Rome, and to the
Pope, by whom alone all reserved cases can be decided .
These, as a friend of mine observed, are “ times in our
“ Church history which require, not Tractarians, but Chris
tians, who are both upright and downright men ,” and such
any unsophisticated portion of England will afford - even our
Yorkshire dales ; and they will rise, too, to give their verdict
in unlooked-for numbers , from spots as quiet now as they are
secluded and unnoticed, if this Romish tampering with Eng
land's confession of faith is to be prolonged. You will feel
that I am not the less awake to this when I add that, from
the confines of my own parish , I look upon the gorge of
the quiet glen where Bishop Coverdale was cradled , and
whence a family derived a name untainted still , and dear
to many an English peasant as well as peer . Let us have a
jury, then , of such men as my friend described . In this sad
crisis, when your appeal goes forth, it needs but little to
satisfy the members of the Church of England that there are
some who would undo the work of Coverdale, and that neu
trality is not the counsel to which the honest and impartial
member of that Church can give heed. Truth and the
Church's peace - nay, as you say, her existence —demand alike
that this case be brought to an issue. Common honour and
consistency require it; and it seems that, feeling the case is

* Preface to Denison's Sermons.-pp . 6 and 148.

 26

narrowing into this small and honest and English compass,

the delinquent and his associates would evade the simple
question - Is, or is not, Ditcher v. Denison , England v. Rome ?
None can withhold an affirmative verdict, with the evidence
which even this letter lays before him, save he who will deny the
evidence of bis senses, and thus the axioms with which I set
out; and, denying these, such an one is inaccessible to de
monstration : with him argument is at an end , and to him we
can only say, in the spirit of one from whom Rome sought to
wrest the acknowledgment of that law by which God main
tained our earth's relation to the orb of light, “ It is truth,
“ nevertheless.”
With an act committed, and affecting as this does the truth
fulness of the clergy of our Church , her doctrine being so ex
plicit, involving the fact whether her ministers shall in the
place of her Articles inculcate antagonistic Romish error , the
case of Ditcher v. Denison is Fidelity v. Treachery. Every
member of the Church is interested in the repudiation of the
Archdeacon's teaching, and cannot allow it to remain a root
of bitterness, to be ever springing up within her pale.
Neutrality, in such a case ,is a word to which we should
be as deaf as to that of treason . We should leave it to
Prussia - it befits not England's honor nor England's truth .
Neither,my dear sir, can such help as Austrian policy may
accord do more than hamper us, postpone our victory, pro
long our struggle, and entail upon us a sacrifice which, apart
from such aid and “ limited counsels,” we might have been
spared ; whilst she holds the ground, doubtful whether truth
and justice, or their enemy, shall have it ; and is by associa
tion, if not by instinct, inclined rather to the latter .
Better be as explicit in our language as our Church is, and
in our conduct also as the Reformers were wont to be, and as
the members of “ the United Church of England and Ireland "
loved to be, till Oxford became Rome's advocate, and sought
to lure us into union with her ; and Scottish Episcopalians,
having learnt the lesson of “ Reserve," with affected attach
ment to our Articles, thought to practise on our presumed
simplicity or faithlessness .*
When we are urged to acquiesce in this Oxford state of

• Every one should read the " Report of a Deputation, appointed at a

“ Meeting held in Aberdeen , May, 1846, of Ministers, and Lay -Members of the
" Church of England,representing the Congregations adhering to her Forms
“ and Doctrines in Scotland , &c.”. Published by Kennedy in Edinburgh ;
Hamilton, Adams and Co., and Nisbet and Co., London ; and Curry, Du lin .
The disingenuous conduct of the Scottish Bishops in the matter will utterly
amaze the ingenuous mind, even in these Tractarian times. The reader may
 27

things, compliance is to yield to the worst thing that can be

asked : it is to falsify our Articles — to “ teach negations” -to
surrender all at last to their effrontery which Tractarians at
first more furtively solicited — to make one foul amalgam of
England and of Rome.
We cannot " solder close impossibilities," though authority
may make them kiss ;" and some may haveno invincible re
pugnance to the enjoined compliance. Let those who will
enjoin, and those who can comply. But, be it whose it may ,
it cannot be the kiss of her who “ rejoices in the truth , ” be
cause she loves it ; nor yet the kiss of peace.
His, we know, was as loving, as gentle, as sweet and as 97
peaceful a spirit, whose counsel was, " No peace with Rome,”
as theirs who now cry “Peace," whilst Rome's advocates would
dupe and circumvent us.
Generations have hung upon the words of Bishop Hall and
pondered over his pages; and from his short though fervent
sentences, and meditations, and views, his ethics, his politics,
and holy observations gathered to the full, as amply as
present or after generations can gather from the aforid
prose and words " of honeyed rhyme," and all the suavities
and acidulæ ,* which fall so copiously from the lips of the
Bishop of Oxford, and which , like soine sweets, when stored
too long, yield at last a stronger acid, and are poured, when so
transniuted, with readier promptitude and equal emphasis, and
more explicit diction, on him who comes forward the faithful
witness of England's Church and her “ old faith ," + than on

also judge of the effect of Scottish doctrine on the mind of the teacher and the
taught when he finds a Scottish bishop thus dogmatizing :
QUESTION— “ Did He not offer the sacrifice of Himself upon the cross ?"
ANSWER—" NO! It was slain upon the cross ; but it was offered at the in
“ stitution of the eucharist, ” &c. & c . — BISHOP JOLLY's Catechism , p. 7.
I earnestly entreat all true members of the Church of England to be on their
guard, and not to aid in forwarding or fostering any teaching of this kind.
The position of the ministers and lay -members of the Church of England in
Scotland demands our most serious consideration and commiseration, and all
should be warned that the faithful of our Church must not compromise them.
selves by any act ofconcurrence in the requirements of Scottish Episcopalians.
Is it possible, or faithful, or “ honest in the sight of all men,” to attempt to
“ solder close ” their teaching with the scriptural doctrine of the Church of
England ? It is only this morning that I have received a letter requesting me
to subscribe towards the rebuilding of a Scotch Episcopal Church in Edin.
burgh.
* Acidulæ , or acidulated waters, a species of mineral waters which contain
a considerable quantity of carbonic acid, and which are known by the pungency
of their taste, the sparkling appearance which they assume when shaken or
poured from one vessel into another, and the facility with which they boil. -
MAUNDER.
+ Bishop Coverdale's “ Old Faith . ”
 28

Rome and her new doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

And though the Bishop of Salisbury throw over his Arch
deacon the shield of episcopal protection, and enjoin " neutra
" lity and peace,” is it dutiful to our Church to acquiesce and
leave this case undecided ? Shall the Bishop lead us, how
ever calmly or however quietly, to the entrance of that laby
rinth where doctors, archdeacons, and examining chaplains

* The Bishop of Oxford's denunciation of the dogma of the Immaculate

Conception is subjoined. It may lose much of its “ effervescence 11 ere it reaches
Rome ; though confessedly it may prove a most effective, as well as needful,
antiseptic atOxford, where the fatal consequences of Rome's corruption and
putrifying wounds spread so rapidly :
" It is to protest anew against this monstrous effort to corrupt by man's
" additions the revealed truth of God. We may not lawfully accept such new
“ dogmas. On us, in our day, as having inherited the pure deposit - on us, as
solemnly set to interpret God's word , as from old it has been interpreted
" the duty is imperative to declare that it is not what God's word reveals; that
“ it is not what apostles taught ; that it is not what the Church bas learned ;
“ that it is another Gospel ; and to this day, from the bosom of this ancient
“ University, as the Bishop of this Church, set in trust with this guardianship,
"in God's name, and with you all as witnesses, I solemnly denounce it .”
Now, I apprehend that the reader, from the above warning, “ Wemay not
LAWFULLY accept such new dogmas," must not conclude that the Bishop or
any of his hearers, nurtured by the “ ancient ” Alma Mater from whose hosom
they were addressed, had , to the crowning of her maternal sorrows, been asked
to accept this recent novelty; nor must he conceive that any, save some of her
more undutiful children , deem it lawful to go either to the Vatican or Oscott for
instruction ; but be this as it may, if it shall appear that much, if not all this,
might with more fitness have been uttered in condemnation of the new and
Romish teaching of Archdeacon Denison, how astonished will every member of
our Church be to find that the following are the words with which the Bishop
of Oxford turns upon him, who, as a faithful witness, withstood such archi
diaconal teachings, and what matter for meditation for the Bishop and all
members of our Church do his Denunciations afford ! “ But what I do blame
you for, and now solemnly charge you with before God our Judge, is this—that
by exaggerated and inflammatory language, by garbled quotations, by appeals
to ungodly and unbelieving prejudices , by the fearless bringing of railing
accusations, by the adoption and use of nick -names - you are doing all you can
to destroy the peace of the Church of Christ amongst us — to break up its
unity-to exasperate differences, and to bring suspicion and hatred upon
humble and holy men of God, at whose feet you may long to be found in that
awful day when Christ will own a loving spirit, and devils claim as their own
the bitter and railing tongue.”
And yet, after fulminating this denunciation on Mr. Brock, does the Bishop
beseech bim to weigh his words upon his knees before God, and to remember
the declaration of our Lord, that the time cometh when whoso killeth you
will think that he doth God service - himself the episcopal palliator®of the
teachings of those who slew the faithful of the Church of England. Truth
and history may well then address the Bishop of Oxford, and say, “Here
" is the patience of the saints - here are they that keep the commandments of
“ God and the faith of Jesus ” ( Rev. xiv. 12) . But you do not allow them
to be the bearers of their message, so that your lordship will bearken to it,
and they can but say , We have tried in vain. See conclusion of the Bishop
of Oxford's letter to Mr. Brock, to whom we are so much indebted for the
retirement of Mr. R. Wilberforce from our Church. Alas ! that consistency
compelled him to go to Rome.
 29

stand waiting to conduct us into those deep and dark recesses

where they and so many of the wise, in Oxford's wisdom , have
lost themselves ? Is it faithfulness or charity that, at such
bidding, we should lie idle, while Archdeacon Denison carries
forward, under our eye, the advanced works of those who have
deserted and are within theshelter of Rome's Vatican ? Will
from a po
it not cost us more, at length, to eject the enemy
sition which we should never have permitted him to occupy
than at once to drive him in upon his own ?
Will it be well for those who now look to the clergy of the
Church of England for guidance, as for those who shall come
after us, that we follow such counsel rather than that of
Bishop Hall ? - not his whose watchword, when the enemy as
sailed us and to all times, was— “No peacewith Rome! ” — but
theirs who, whilst Pope and Cardinals are urging on , and Deni.
son within the Church's pale is inculcating the doctrine and
doing the work of Rome , cry " PEACE - Be NEUTRAL ?
If the last words prevail, then must our children put on the
armour and take up the weapons of Truth which our fore
fathers used so faithfully, but which we cast away at their
summons, whose perfidious suggestion long has been
Mutemus clypeos, Danaumque insignia Nobis
Aptemus. VIRGIL, Æn. 2.*
• Near sixty years ago, it was asked whether this suggestion became Eng
land, as regards the instruments of her temporal warfare ;and with the question
went forth a warning against Rome's subtle purposes, to which we have
been more insensible than the dead ~ " deaf as those that will not hear.” So it
has come to this—that it is now proposed to us by so -called clergy of the Church
of Englandto exchange the weapons and the ensigns of her spiritual warfare
for those of Rome-- the Bible, the word of God, for Rome's traditions, the word
of man, or to use the first in subserviency to the last— " the Gospel, which is
" the power of God unto Salvation to every onethat believeth ,” for the power
of the Church of Rome to save whom she will—the Sacrament of Baptism,
with " repentance and faith required in those that are baptized,” or “ the
“ promise of both " attached to infants, with the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, the bread and wine received in remembrance of His death , and fed
upon by faith ; for Rome's sacraments, according to the “ opus operatum,” with
priestly intention," and the body and blood of Christ in the outward sign or
sacrament received and eaten by all - the confession of our faith, proved by
the word of God, for the articles non -naturally interpreted, the Canons of
Trent, and the creed and bulls of Popes-- the Liturgy of our Church for the
breviaries, the fabricated legends, falsehoods, and superstitions of Rome, with
countless tales and books, of all sizes and prices, adapted to young and old , and
eve: y elass — spirituality of worship, for the idolatry of the mass, & c.,&c. But
our language, as those who know in whom they have believed, shouldbe to all
who, wanting in such experience, proffer to us the armour of Saul. “ The Lord
" that hathdelivered me out of thepower of the lionand out of the power of
" the bear, He will deliver me out of thepower of the Philistines.” _ “ I cannot
go with these, for I have not proved them ; " and, if those who have put them
onwill not put them off, they must, sooner or later, find them only an incum .
brance ; and when the faturebattle goes sore against them, and they are hit and
bore wounded of the enemy, in the agony of their soul they will cry in vain to
Rome for deliverance and fall upon their own sword.
 30

Or, if not this, there will be but one other course before
them . They must leave that in the power of Romewhich
we have so weakly ceded to her ; and mounting the bulwarks
which the cry of “ Neutrality ” had led us to abandon , and
looking o'er the scene which such “ Peace ” has blighted, our
children, unable to reconcile a heart in which the seed of
God's word was early sown and over which the power of
that word has come at last, must quit the “ United Church of
England and Rome ” with this mournful record, written in
delibly on all around, but deeper still in their own hearts

Solitudinem Faciunt-- Pacem Appellant.— (Tacit. VITA AGRIC.)

But, in their sorrow , they shall not marvel; for they shall
remember that elsewhere it has also been twice written , and
where their fathers should have read it and not forgotten,
both in the book of God's prophet and in a people's over
throw_ “ Take away her battlements — for they are not the
“ Lord's .” — ( Jer. v. 10).
With many sincere thanks and acknowledgments to your
noble and honourable colleagues for the letter addressed to
me, and for your faithful and consistent efforts in defence of
the “ United Church of England and Ireland, " and with the
earnest prayer that to none may your appeal be made in
yain,

I am , dear sir,

Yours very truly and faithfully,

HENRY JOHN DUNCOMBE.

 31

POSTSCRIPT.

To any Bishop of the present day who may shelter this

Romish dogma, which Archdeacon Denison seeks to plant
within our pale, the words which the faithful witness, already
often quoted , addressed to the Bishop of Winchester, ere yet
episcopal authority had stifled the voice of truth in the flames
of martyrdom , seem to speak loudly as when Bradford uttered
them !
66
Ah, my Lord ! - ( quoth Bradford ) —that you would enter
“ into God's sanctuary, and mark the end of this present
“ doctrine you now so magnify !
“ What meanest thou by that ? ( quoth he). I ween we
6 shall have a snatch of rebellion even now.
“ No ( quoth Bradford ), my Lord . I mean no such end as
you would gather. I mean an end which none seeth but
they that enter into God's sanctuary. If a man look but
upon present things, he will soon deceive himself.”
Here now did my Lord Chancellor offer again mercy ; and
Bradford answered, as before, “ Mercy with God's mercy
“ should be welcome ; but otherwise he would none."
*
“ And so, after humble obeisance to the council, I went
66 with my keeper ; and , as God knoweth , with as merry a
“ heart and so quiet a conscience and ever I had in all my
“ life ; rejoicing that it had pleased the goodness of God,
“ threw his mercy, to call me, most wretched sinner, to such
an office as to be a witness bearer to His truth.
“ God of His mercy deliver His people from evil. Amen .
By me, JOHN BRADFORD .” *

And so they departed ; the said John Bradford as cheer

fully as any man could do, declaring thereby even a desire to
give his life for confirmation of that he hath taught and
written : and surely, if HE DO So, his death will destroy MORE
OF THE PHILISTINES, as Samson did, than ever he did in his
life. God Almighty keep him and all his fellows bound for
the Lord's sake. Amen .
* Bradford's Works, p. 472.

William Edward Painter, Printer, 342, Strand, London.

น
7
 RECORD OF TREATMENT, EXTRACTION ETC.

Shelfmark : 3939 e 2 Co - 11 )
S & P Ref No.
CC1309 / 31
Microfilm No.

Date Particulars
pH Before or Existing pH After

Deacidification
bicarb
mag
oct
Adhesives
wheat starch paste
2001

gelatine glue
Lined Idamined with Kozu - SHI 23 gsm

Chemicals / Solvents

CoverTreatment

Other Remarks