,%. .18^, -'^^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) „„, /^ ^ v^^ 1.0 I.I 11.25 ■ 56 2.5 ■^ IM 1112.2 2.0 1.8 U IIIIII.6 V] (^ -^ /. o\ o^ /^ Photogra^jhic Sciences Corporalion 23 WKT MAIN STRKT WIBSTM,N.Y. 14580 (716)872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquas Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas off this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagas in tha reproduction, or which may significantly change tha usual method of filming, are checiced below. D D n D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couieur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture r^staurte et/ou polliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiquas en couieur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or blacit)/ Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion J along interior margin/ La re liure serr6e peut causar de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intirieure Blanic leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certainas pages blanches ajouttes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, iorsqua cela ttait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M6 film^as. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mantaires: L'Institut a microfiimt le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lul a 4t4 poasibla de se procurer. Les dAtaiis de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographiqua, qui peuvent mod> )er une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger ijne modification dans la mAthoda normale de filmaga sont indiqute ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couieur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagAas □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurias et/ou pelliculAes r~Z\ Pages discoloured, stained or ffoxed/ n Pages dAcolories. tachetAes ou piqu«ies Pages detached/ Pages d^tachies Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Qualit^ in^gaia da i'imprassion Includes supplementary matarii Comprend du material suppi^mantaira Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible I I Pages detached/ j~^ Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ 1 s 1 V d e b ri n n Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalament ou partieliement obscurcies par un ffeuillet d'errata, una pelure, etc., ont 4t6 filmtes A nouveau da fa9on A obtanir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X ■1^^ ^BH^H HiHBHH ^^^mm wm^^m ^^^a^ as^^^ ^^^^ i^^^^ ^^^^m ■■■■■■i ^mmi^ ^^^^m ^^^^ XI I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmad h«r« has b««n roproducad thanks to the ganarosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'axamplaira filmi f ut raproduit grAca A la gAnArositA da: La biblif *hAqua das Archives publiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and iegibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Las images suivantes ont AtA reproduites avac la plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition et de la nettetA de Texempleire f ilmA, et en conformity evec lea conditions du contrat da filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the iaat page with a printed or illuatrated imprea- sion.or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copiea are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illuatrated impres- sion, and ending on the iaat page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmAs en commenpant par la premier plat et en terminant soit par Ja darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, aaion le cas. Tous las autras exemplaires originaux sont film6s an commandant par la pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la darnlAre page qui comporte una telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^-^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the aymbo] V (meaning "END"), whichever appiiea. Un dea symboles suivants apparaftra sur la darnlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le caa: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, aa many frames aa required. The following diagrama illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Stre filmte A das taux de r6duction diffdrents. Loraqua la document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est fiimA A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaira. Las diagrammas suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 m A REPLY r 'mr TO rry THE REV. F. COSTER'S DEFENCE OF THE ^^n^MDAAT COMPANION TO THE PRAYER BOOK BT The Rev.'d I. W. D. GRAY, D. D., BEUTOR OF SAINT JOHN. W I T H A > APPENDIX ( /, i.// ///^/^^ ^ /r/u A REPLY TO THE REV. F. COSTER'S DEFENCE OF THE CC COMPANION TO THE PRAYER BOOK. ^^ BT The Rev.'d I. W. D. GRAY, D. D., KECTOR OF SAINT JOHN, '* Ottties arc our'e ; ©oents wz Sob's." SAINT JOHN, N. B.: PRINTED BY J. k. A. McMILLAN, PRINCE WILLIAM STREET. 1849. : r ' '•) •,- *; jiSi^^ .7... ..4t'^ I' .'■•)! f >.' n ~' PREFACE. The Rev.'d Mb. Costkr has lately circulated throughout my Parish, and for aught I know, through other parts of the Diocese, a printed paper, entitled "The Companion to the Prayer Book defended against the unfounded objec- tions of the Rev. Dr. I. W. D. Gray." The first question that presents itself is. How did Mr. Cotter become possessed of those objections? This is a point that requires some explanation. By some unusual process, differing certainly from the ordinary routine of conventional practice, a portion of my private correspondence with the Lord Bishop of the Diocese has found its way into Mr. Coster's possession, and has forthwith been made the basis of a personal attack upon me, through the medium of the Press. Had the cor- respondence been a public one, even in that case, it would have been unfair for a third party to interpose, and throw the weight of his opinions into the scalg, until it had reached its termination. But, when private letters, instead of the public Press, had been the channels of communication, and while the interchange of those letters was still pending, for a gentleman, unchallenged, uninvited, unauthorized, as far as it yet appears, to enter the arena, and bringing with him a fragment of the correspondence on one side of the ques- tion, to undertake the refutation of it before the pubUc, does certainly, in some measure, set at defiance the courtesies of the social compact. I may be mistaken, but I am under the strong impression that, throughout society, in any of its gradations, a candid and intelligent person could scarcely be found, whose judgment would not pronounce upon such a proceeding the verdict of condemnation. One simple fact, that shows the impropriety of this course, is, that a few brief quotations in my letter are, without the slightest hint as to the circum- stances under which they were made by me, held up to public view as unfair extracts. The correspondence which embodied them arose in consequence of a request, on the part of the Lord Bishop, to be referred to the names of Authors, and to passage i in their Works, which had been thought objection- able. In compliance with that request, Books were named, passages referred 4 PREFACE. to, and, where it scciucd necessary to point out the particular clauses to which the objections applied, short extracts were given; given, not to the public, to inform them of the contents of Works to which they had not access, but to the Lord Bishop, who had the Works in possession, and consequently tho means of examining the entire contents. Was it consonant with tho laws of legitimate controversy to take those extracts in their isolated form, unaccom- panied by the correspondence that explained them, and hold them up to the public as specimens of unfair quotations? But Mr. Coster has gone further: He has not only condemned prematurely the extracts, as unfair, but under- takes to insinuate that this supposed unfairness was the result of improper motives. To such a charge as this, I can afford to be silent. It will not harm the accused : it will not benefit the accuser. It is possible, indeed, that some of my readers, while perusing the following pages, may think, — well, here is indeed a scope for returning the compliment; but I shall not avail myself of it. The object of my reply is not to impeach Mr. Coster's motives, or to vindicate my own ; but to place the truth before ray readers in such a form, that they may be (guarded against error. While, in aiming at this end, I deem it better not to retort the personalities with which Mr. Coster's paper abor.nds ; in reference to its theology, I shall examine it closely, and use as little ceremony as possible in showing the unsoundness of its principles. Of those principles, as contained in the little Work entitled the " Companion to the Prayer Book," which Mr. Coster undertakes to defend, but from which the Bishop of the Diocese has withdrawn his sanction, I certainly did affirm, at the late meeting of the Diocesan Church Society, that they were not in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England. I affirm it still. They are not so. They are " strange and erroneous doctrines," opposed alike to the Bible and the Prayer Book — dishonourable to God — injurious to man — and, to the best of my ability, God being my helper, I will endeavour to banish them from my Parish. ., , t !': rl REPLY. V Mr. Coster's first argument, in favour of the "Com- panion to the Prayer Book," is drawn from t^fernal sources. He says, " It is taken almost word for w^ord from a very celebrated Work, ' The Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer,' by Bishop Sparrow, one of the best Ritualists that the Church of England has produced." And hence, Mr. Coster infers, that "this excellent little book," as he terms it, "is not the production of any mean or incompetent person, nor of any one in any way con- nected with what is called the modern Romanizing School." Now really this mode of reasoning is too great a demand upon our generosity. While, as yet, we are not in a conceding mood, it supposes us willing to concede everi/ thing. First, we are required to grant, without evidence of the fact, that all the extracts in this little Work, are taken from Bishop Sparrow; whereas, in the whole Work, we have but three references to Bishop Sparrow, acknowledged by the author ; and two of these are from his collection of Articles. In all the other instances, we are referred to Councils, as of Carthage, Toledo, Laodicea, &c., or to Fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertul- lian, Chyrsostom, Cyril, Augustine, Gregory, &c., without even a hint from the Author that these are Sparrow's authorities. But, suppose all the extracts in this little w REPLY. I!: Compendium to be taken from Bishop Sparrow, the ques- tion is, do they fairly represent his opinions? Are they a faithful transcript of the doctrines he means to inculcate in his "Rationale?" In tracing the origin of rites, a learned Ritualist may have quoted from all the Fathers that have ever lived, and all the Councils that have ever sat, in Christendom, ancient or modern, without meaning to adopt, as his own, or inculcate upon his Church, all the sentiments contained in his quotations. Before we can be expected to take these upon his authority, we require to know, distinctly, which he authorizes, and which he does not. And when we Jtnow this, Mr. Coster must go a step further, and prove to us, that every sentiment adopted by Bishop Sparrow is a rule for us, now, in the Church of England. Tliis is a concession we are not prepared to make. We know that Bishops and Popes, Churches and General Councils, are all fallible, — that all have erred, and egregiously too. Their opinions and de- crees are consequently, no further a rule for us than they accord with our one great standard, the Holy Scriptures, and cur own Church's exponents of that standard, the Articles and Prayer Book. A Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer may be instructive as an historical record, and gratifying to the Ecclesiastical Antiquary, but it is no rule for the Church of England upon doctrinal points : and it is easy to see how a little Compendium from such a work, may be constructed for the purpose of perverting, instead of correcting, the faith of the unwary. If such authority is to be appealed to, let the appeal be a fair one. Let Mr. Coster prove to us satisfactorily, first, that all the extracts in this little work are taken, word for word, from Bishop Sparrow's Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer ; secondly, that they are so taken, and so combined, in that Compendium, as to present the genuine sentiments of that author ; and thirdly, that there are no tenets ex- pxessed or recommended in Bishop Sparrow's work, but ■3 REPLY. one. what the members of the Church of England are bound to subscribe to. Every one of these positions he ought to substantiate before he can expect us to adopt his conclu- sion ; instead of which, he begins his defenco of the book, by presenting us with a "non sequitur" as to its author- ship. The extracts, he says, are taken from Bisliop Sparrow, therefore the Companion "is not the production of any mean author, or of any one in any way connected with the modern Romanizing school." But who can trace here the connexion between antecedent and conse- quent? Because Mr. Coster's paper contains extracts from Hooker, does it follow that his paper is not the pro- duction of any one connected with the modern Romanizing school? The remote ancestor of the " Companion" might have been a good Ritualist; but its immediate father a very unsound member of the Church of England, perhaps not a member of it at all. The question is not, whether the extracts are from Bishop Sparrow ; but who was the modern Sparrow, that picked these feathers from the old Sparrow's nest, and glued them together in their present form? My mind is not prone to suspicion, but I cannot help thinking that he is one of those delicate birds, that have been in the habit of migrating to Rome in the winter season, for a more genial climate. Let, however, this retiring bird, who sits at present in the shades of anony- mous obscurity, come forward and show his plumage, and then we will undertake to show, that whether he belongs to the old Romanizing school, or the new one, it matters not, if his Work be one oi Romanizing tendency, which any true Protestant, one would think, might easily discern that it is, Mr. Coster's next argument is drawn from internal sources, from the contents of the book itself. It contains, he says, "a noble extract from Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity." Be it so. There might be fifty extracts fiom Hooker found in the writings of Romfin Catholic authors; --iS. 8 REPLY. but this would hardly prove, that their writings are of "pure Protestant quality." It contains also a notice of an historical fact, viz., that the "service books of every Church, were originally composed, in the language of the people for whose use they were intended." Why, any Roman Catholic acquainted with history will admit this. Harding, for example, the opponent of Jewel, says, " In the time of the primitive church, the people celebrated holy things in the vulgar tongue." — "Tempore Primitivae Ecclesias populus in lingua vulgari sacra celebrabat." Does this prove his writings to have been of "pure Pro- testant quality?" But Mr. Coster quotes another passage from the " Companion," to prove the purity of its Pro- testantism, as follows : III « This public service is accepted of God, not only for those who are present " and say amen to it, but for all those who are absent upon just cause, even " for all that do not renounce communion with it and the Church : for it is « the common service of them all, and agreed to by all of them, to be offered «up for them all, and therefore is accepted for all them, though presented to r *' God by the Priest alone, as the Lamb offered up to God by the Priest (£xod. " 29,) was the sacrifice of the whole congregation of the children of Israel, a " sweet smelling savour, a savour of rest, to pacify Almighty God daily, and *' to continue his favour to them, and make him dwell with them." , ,f ^_-,.r This is the entire passage. The words in italics were omitted by Mr. Coster, but I have given them as they stand in the " Companion," that, with the full extract be- fore him, the reader may be able to judge of the amount of Protestantism which the passage contains. He will find in it a comparison drawn between the office of the Jewish. Priest, which was to offer a Lamb daily to God for the whole congregation of Israel, "to pacify," says the author of the Companion, "Almighty God daily," and that of the Christian Priest, who, in the daily service, according to this writer, makes an offering to God, in his capacity as Priest, for a}) the Church, whether present or absent. That the implication contained in this passage, 1 .z> 3 .>v* RS PLT. 9 are of itice of every I of the y, any it this, s, « In (brated mitivae •abat." :e Pro- lassage s Pro- •!..r.rf-v. e present use, even for it is >e ofTered sented to, ft (£xod. Israel, a lily, and :VaI 5 were s they ict be- mount e will of the God says "and rvice, in his ent or ssage, I as to the power vested in *he Christian Priest, to make a propitiatory offering for God's Church, is in harmony with Romanism and at variance with Protestantism, every sound Protestant will admit. He will be able to discri- minate between the office of offering up prayer for God's church, in which the whole congregation, no less than the Priest, unites; and the exclusive power here claimed for the Priest, of making a propitiatory offering for the Church. In a word, he will perceive that the par- allel here attempted to be shown, between the Jewish and the Christian Priest, does not in reality exist; and that Mr. Coster's extract from the "Companion," is a positive proof of the Romanizing tendencies of its author. As to the negative proof that Mr. Coster attempts to draw, from the fact that the writer makes " mention of present and absent, but says not a word of the dead,''' it is really too feeble to merit a serious reply. His acquaintance with Roman Catholic writers ought to have made him familiar with a multitude of passages in which, even when speak- ing of the Eucharist (which the author of the Companion is not) the absent are named without specifying the dead. To give an example, a celebrated Romanist says, " Foras- much as Christ said to the Apostles, *do this,' he thereby directed them to do as he himself had done, and therefore since the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, he thus consti- tuted them Priests, and enjoined them and their successors to offer that sacrifice continually, for themselves and for the sins of others.'' Now, will Mr. Coster say that the work of this Romanist is of "pure Protestant quality," because while he asserts one tenet of his Church, he omits to state another? because while he maintains that the Eucharist is a propitiation for the whole Church, present and absent, he does not add for the dead likewise ? Such then are the arguments to prove " the pure Pro- testantism'* of the "Companion to the Prayer Book." It has ext ^cts said to be from Bishop Sparrow, which are B 10 REPLY. !| f t 1 1 if full of Romish doctrine ; it has a quotation from Hooker, which any Romish book might have ; it acknowledges an historical fact which any well informed Roman Catholic will do ; and contains a passage which implies a doctrine that Roman Catholic writers explicitly maintain ! ! These, I repeat it, are the arguments put forth, in the exordium of Mr. Coster's defence, to fascinate the minds of Protes- tants, to produce a favourable impression in regard to this "excellent little book," and render them more charitable to its failings which have subsequently to be explained away. I put it to the common sense and candor of re- flecting persons, whether such arguments as these, sought out witli diligence by a skilful person and advanced in the fore-front of his defence, are not sufficient of themselves to stamp upon this work the superscription of Romanism? Mr. Coster next enters formally upon the work of " de- fence," and takes up seriatim, the objections I have urged against the " Companion," in my private correspondence with the Lord Bishop. His first quotation from my let- ter is as follows : "1. In a note to page 87, it is asserted to be the office of the Christain " Priest ' to make an atonement for the people,^ and that with a view to " make the people understand this, the Church orders that ' when thua •• making an atonement fur them, and offering up for them the passion of " Christ, the Priest should say the prayers secretly, mystically.^ Surely this ** teaching is at variance with the doctrines of our Prayer Book, and deroga- " lory to the honour of Christ." . ., - Upon this extract Mr. Coster comments as follows : " That Dr. Gray mistakes the meaning of this passage is perfectly clear from ^tho simple fact, that his extract to all appearance makes the author of the " < Companion,' to say < that the Church ' of England < orders that the •« Priest should say the prayers secretly, mystically,-^ whereas he actually says " in express terms that < this Church' of England does not order the Priest to ** say these prayers secretly" Now let the reader turn to Dr. Gray's extract upon vhich Mr. Coster comments, and he will see that the m iiii REPLY. 11 words "op England" are added by Mr. Coster himself, not by Dr. Gray. Yet these very words are the point upon which Mr. Coster's objection turns. He himself adds the words that originate the error, and then from his own addition infers that " it is perfectly clear that Dr. Gray is mistaken," whereas, in point of fact, the only thing "perfectly clear" is that Mr. Coster has made a blunder. Mr. Coster proceeds to say — " I will transcribe the whole note." " The reason of these aecreta, secret " prayers said by the Priest may be partly for ".ariety to refresh the people, " but chiefly as I conceive, that by this course, the people might be taught to "understand and reverence th£ office of the priest, which is to make " ' ; ATONEMEWT FOR THE PEOPLE, and to present their prayers to God by " that very offering of them, making them more acceptable to God : all of which '< depends not upon the people's consent or confirmation of his ')fBce, but upon " God's alone appointment and institution, who hath set him apart to these « offices of offering gifts and sacrifices for the people. And therefore as it was " appointed by God, that when Aaron by his Priestly office was to offer for " the people and make an atonement for them, none of the people were to be "present; so the Church orders that at some times, when the Priest « is makixo an atonemekt for the people, and offering up for them and " the acceptation of their prayers, the merits and passion of Christ, none should " seem actually to assist, but the Priest should say it secretly mystically. The " Church of England is generally in her common prayers as for an humble, so ** for an audible voice, especially in the Lord's prayer, appointing it to be " said in the rubric before it, with a loud, that is, an audible voice, not secret- " ly : and this for the more earnest repetition of so divine words, and to make " them more familiar to the people. But though this Church does not order " the Priest to say these prayers secretly, yet she retains the same order of " offering up by the Priest in collects following the people's foregoing suppli- « cations." " The fact is that Dr. Gray passes over the sentence which doe« « relate to the Church of England, because it would not suit his purpose, and " applies to her one which relates not to her, but as I conceive to the Church "of Rome." *- • = In the above note, the words printed in capitals are the clauses referred to in my extract. The first clause so printed, expresses the author of the "Companion's" opi- nion as to the office of a Priest in general ; therefore, of course, of his office in the Church qf England. Mr. If REPLY. Coster sees this very plainly, and v;ndertakes to vindicate this opinion by the authority of Dr. Thomas Jackson, of Hooker, and of the first Book of Chronicles. I shall give attention to these references presently. The second clause so printed, Mr. Coster tells us, relates^ as he conceives, to the Chicrch of Home. Suppose now we grant this, does it not make tlie matter worse than before? Are we, in a "Companion to our Prayer Book," to have the Church of Borne represented as " the Church," and her doctrines brought to bear upon the language of our Liturgy, so as to give it a sense which is really foreign to it? Are we to have, without warning or intimation, her teaching mixed up with that of our own Church, in such a way as to convey her sentiments secretly and mystically to the minds of our people? But, why did it not occur to Mr. Coster, as it did in reference to the term Priest , that when using the terms "the Church," the writer was referring not to the Church of Rome in particular, or to the Church of England in particular, but to the Church general, or Catholic ? If he had carefully read the pages of this little work, the " Companion," which he so highly eulogizes, he would have seen that this is the way the author of it usually refers to the Church Catholic, as distinguished from any particu- lar branch of it. If in doing so he means to identify the Church Catholic and the Church Roman, as Mr. Coster's interpretation implies, then the author of this work is out and out a Romanist; for no man on earth does this but a Romanist. If he means to designate the Church Catholic, as distinguished from the Church Roman, then Mr. Coster is wrong in his interpretation, and after all, the difficulty is not removed, for then we have a writer bringing for- ward what he regards as the opinions of the Church Cath- olic to pervert the teaching of the Church of England. Mark how he does this. The Church (i. e. Catholic,) orders the Priests to say those prayers secretly; the ^IM REPLY. IS indicate kson, of lall give ■\- . , .. \ , relates, ase now yse than Book," S " THE pon the kvhich is rning or ur own itiments ? But, ference 5 "the urch of and in lie? If ►rk, the would Y refers •articu- ify the oster's : is out 5 but a tholic, Coster ficulty g for- Cath- ?land. lolic,) the Church of England does not : here is her trivial differ- ence. The Church (i. e. Catholic,) recognzics the office of the Priest to offer up an atonement for the people ; the Church of England retains " the same order of offer- ing up by the Priest;" here is her essential resemblance. And where does she retain this order? Why in the prayers which are offered by the Priest alone, after the Litany. He offers them alone ; they are " secreta" secret prayers to be said 'by him alone, to teach the people to reverence his office, which is to make an atonement for them. This, Church of England men, is the teaching you are to receive from the "Companion." Your Prayer Book tells you that " Christ has offered a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world;" the "Companion" tells you a differ- ent story, viz., that your Priests make an atonement for you from time to time, by offering up for you the passion of Christ. Which will you believe ? Which will you adhere to ; your Prayer Book compiled by the venerable Reformers of your Church, or this anonymous production called the " Companion to the Prayer Book," but which, in my humble opinion, ought to have been styled the "Companion to the Romish Missal?" But I turn to Mr. Coster's authorities. To support the idea that it is the office of the Priest in general to make an atonement for the people, he reasons as follows : <' In describing the office of the Priest such expressions are very common " with our best, soundest, most Protestant Divines, as for instance. Dr. "Thomas Jackson, one of the ablest opponents of Popery the Church of " England has produced. He says that to be a Priest implies as much as to " be a Mediator or Intercessor for averting God's wrath, or an Advocate for pro- " curing his favours and blessings. — Commentaries B. 1 1, C. 2. With respect " to the Jewish Priest it is said in Scripture repeatedly as in 1 Chron. vi. 49, " ' that Aaron and his sons were appointed to make an atonement for Israel.' " And Hooker says, Book V.S. 78, 'That a Priest is a clergyman who ofTereth <* sacrifice to God. The Fathers of the Church of Christ call usually the min- 14 REPLY. =i» ^11! >)! I., *' istry of the Gospel Priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath *' proportionably to ancient sacrifices, viz., the communion of the blessed body " and blood of Christ, although it hath properly no sacrifice.' " As to Dr. Jackson, when we have the context of the above passage, we shall be able to judge of the value of the extract. At present, suffice it to say, that the language quoted from him is not parallel to that in the " Compan- ion ;" and if it were, he is no authority for us any further than his teaching accords with Scripture. As to the refer- ence to Chronicles, where it is said that "Aaron and his sons were appointed to make an atonement for Israel," it is sufiicient to say, that we have not Aaron and his sons now. The Levitical priesthood has passed away. The Christian ministry has succeeded. We have no literal sacrificing Priest under the Christian dispensation, ex- cept that glorious High Priest who sits at the right hand of God. We do not even retain the name of a sacrificing Priest, as applied in its literal sense to the Christian minister. Mr. Coster knows full well that the " Hiereus" of the Lew is not the " Presbyter" of the Gospel, and that the term Priest as the translation of the former ^ is of different import from the term Priest as the contraction of the latter. The Christian Minister, as such, has not the term "Hiereus" applied to him and for this obvious reason, because he offers no propitiatory sacrifice, and by conse- quence, makes no atonement for sin. He has no power to do so : he has no need to do it ; for this work has been done for him, in the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, done " once for all," fully, effectually, forever. It needs no addition, no repetition, no fresh offering up by Priestly substitution. " Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." (Heb. 9.) "By one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." (Heb. 10.) "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Now where re- mission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (Heb. 10.) Such is the plain teaching of the Divine REPLY. 15 jrospe! hath •leased body :t of the value of anguage ^ompan- j further he refer- and his irael," it his sons y. The ► literal ion, ex- ht hand crificing 'hristian reus" of that the ifferent of the le term reason, conse- power IS been cross, needs 'riestly le sins fected ir sins tre re- )ivine oracles, and all terms that convey an opposite meaning, or are fairly capable of an opposite construction are to be carefully shunned. The use of inaccurate language leads to the adoption of unsound opinions. Justly has it been remarked by a Dignitary of our Church, that the " incau- "tious, ambiguous, figurative, and illustrative expressions "which abound in the works of the Christian Fathers, "liitie versed, in general, in critical accuracy, and, except "when contending with Pagan or Heretical opponents, "chiefly intent on devotional or pastoral instruction, were " easily diverted from their original and sounder meaning, " and wrested to the countenance and support of the gros- " sest errors and abuses both of the Eastern and Western "Churches." The "incautious," "ambiguous," "figura- tive" language of some of the rnodern Fathers of the 17th century, and of some of their ardent admirers in the 1 9th, is liable to the same evil. But Mr. Coster has referred to Hooker, a name justly revered in our Church and has given, in combination, two brief extracts from his V. Book. Commencing with the first of these, I shall give Hooker's words at sufficient length to include them both, requesting my readers to note that Mr. Coster's extracts are exhibited by the words in italics, and other important clauses by the words in capi- tals. Remarking upon the distinction between the ori- ginal and popular meaning of terms, Hooker says — " If you ask of the common sort what any certain word, for example, what a Priest doth signify, their manner is not to answer, a Priest is a Clergyman which offereth sacrifice to God, but they shew some particular person whom they use to call by that name. And, if we list to descend to grammar, we are told by masters in those schools that the word Priest hath his right place " in him whose mere function or charge is the service of God." Howbeit because the most eminent part both of Heathenish and Jewish service did consist in sacrifice, when learned men declare what the word Priest doth pro- perly signify according to the mind of the first imposer of that name, their ordinary scholies do well expound it to imply sacrifice. Sekino tukn that SAcxiFiGS IB now Ko VAKT ot THS CHURCH xiNisTBT how should the name 16 REPLY. w of Priesthood bo thereunto rightly applied ? Surely even aa St. Paul applieth the name of Flesh unto that very substance of fishes which hath a proportion- able correspondence to flesh, although it be in nature another thing. Where- upon when philosophers will speak warily, they make a difference between flesh in one sort of living creatures and that other substance in the rest which hath but a kind of analogy to flesh : the Apostle contrariwise having matter of greater importance whereof to speak nameth indifferently both flesh. The Fathers of the Church of Christ with like security of speech call usually t/ie Ministry of the Gospel Priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionable to ancient sacrifices, namely the Communion of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice. As for the people when they hoar tho name it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of sacrifice, than the name of a senator or of an alderman causeth them to think upon old age, or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient because years were respected in the first nomination of both. Wherefore, to pass by the name, let them use what dialect they will, whether we call it a Priesthood, a Presbytership, or a Ministry, it skilleth not : Al- THOUOH IN TRUTH THE WORD PrESBTTJSR DOTH SEEM MORE FIT, AND IN PROPRIETT OF SPEECH MORE AGREEABLE THAN PrIEST WITH THE DRIFT OF THE WHOLE GospEL OF Jesus Christ. For what are they that embrace the Gospel but sons of God] What are Churches but his families 1 Seeing therefore we receive the adoption and state of sons by their ministry whom God hath chosen out for that purpose, (.eeing also that when we are the sons of God, our continuance is still under their care which were our progenitors, what better title could there be given them than the Reverend name of Pres- byters or fatherly guides ? The Holt Ghost throvohout the bodt or THE New Testamekt making so much mention of them doth not ant where call them Priests." ^ . : r , '■■... 5, -^ ;,' ;.-,j '■! ^..<.- / ? ■; • ■■,i..j • v.. ;,san causcth irmed must on of both. 11, whether not : Al- IT, AND IN E DRIFT or imbrace the > 1 Seeing istry whom re the soni trogenitors, le of Pre«- E BODT or NOT ANT \\ |of it is, offered itood at Isters of ibyter" |no part [though agh- *riests. senti- short Ion" is 1 right in saying that it is the office of a Priest to make an atonement for the people, and in assigning this as a rea- son why certain Collects in our Liturgy are said by the Priest alone. I do not in the sHghtest degree mean to impeach Mr. Coster's motives, but 1 would simply ask my readers to consider, whether the next paragraph on Mr. Coster's paper, viz., " Dr. Gray's extracts arc often very unfairly made," comes in gracefully or not, at this par- ticular point ? *"* I proceed to Mr. Coster's second quotation from my letter. " 2d. Again, p. 126, two Collects in our Post-Communion Service, are said to teach that the great benefits of the Sacrament are remission of sins, and yet other things, and that not only for those who are present in the body and earn- municaie, but for all the whole Church. Now is this really the doctrine of the Collects 1 The Catechism of Trent says, ' Such is the efficacy of this sacrifice (the Mass) that its benefits extend not only to the celebrant and communicant, but also to all the faithful whether living or numbered amongst those who have died in the Lord, but whose sins have not yet been fully expi- ated.' But where in the beautiful language of the Collects in question, do we find such a doctrine as this 1" ..... Such is the quotation. Mr. Coster then proceeds : <' In answer to Dr. Gray's first question, I say that in the passage he quote* from the " Companion," there is not only the doctrine of the Collect, but its very language almost word for word. To show this I will place the extract from the " Companion," and one from the Collect in parallel columns — tho identity of the language wiU. then be clearly seen." COMPANION. "The great benefits of the Sacra- ment are remission of sins and yet other things, and that not only for those who are present in the body and communicate, but for all the whole Church." COLLECT. " That we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion." After presenting the above parallel, Mr. Coster observes, " this is a satisiSctory answer to the first question." How 18 REPLY. far it is " satisfactory" will be more obvious, when my readers have looked at the true parallel, which is as follows : COMPANION. "The great benefits of the Sacra- ment are remisuon of sins and yet other things, and that not only for these who are present in the body and communicate, but for all the whole Church." COLLECT. "Thnt BT TUB MGniTS AND DXATU OF THT Son Jesus Chiiist, and THiiovoii FAITH IN uis BLoon,weand all thy whole Church may obtain re- mission of sins and all other benefits of his passion." Let the reader observe, that the words printed in capitals in the above quotation from the Collect, are left out by Mr. Coster in his quotation between the words "that" and " we ;" left out without the remotest hint that any thing is omitted. And yet these very words mark one im- portant difference between the "Companion" and the " Collect." The extract from the " Companion" is a de- claration that we get remission of sins bi/ the sacrament j that from the " Collect" is a prayer that by the merits and death of Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we may receive remission of our sins. Let the reader mark, and mark well, and bear it in mind when he lays this pamphlet down, that the doctrine of the " Com- panion" and that of the "Collect" are not, in this instance, the same, but totally different, and that this difference, broad and palpable as it is when they are brought fairly together, is kept out of sight in Mr. Coster's quotation of the Collect, by an elision of the very words that mark the distinction. And as the above extracts show the dissimilarity be- tween the " Collect'' and the " Companion,*' so that from the "Companion" exhibits on the other hand the similarity between the doctrine of the " Companion" and the " Catechism of Trent." Let us place these in parallel columns, and then we shall be able to estimate the weight of Mr. Coster's denial of any coincidence be- tween them. ^ T :: f. cki^i i! I .J'<^- REPLY. 19 vhen my ich is as AND OXATU iniBT, AND .OOP, we and ly obtain ro« ther benefits ti capitals ft out by (( that ft s that any k one inl- and the ' is a de- '.rament; \e merits 'h in his Let the when he " Corn- instance, fference, It fairly ation of nark the rity be- so that and the Mfaniofi" these in estimate mce be- COMPANION. The great benefits of the Sacrament are remission of sins and yet other TRENT CATECHISM. Such is the efficacy of this Sacrifice (the mass) that its benefits extend not things, and tliat not only fur those only to the celelrrant and communicant who are present in the body and com municatc, but for all the whole church. but to all the faithful whether living or numbered amongst those who have died in the Lord, but whoso sins have not lyet boon fully expiated. Here observe what the "Companion" asserts, viz., that the benefits of the Sacrament^ which are remission of sins and yet other things, extend not only to those who are present and communicate^ but to all the whole Churchy and then observe what the Catechism of Trent says, viz., that the benefits of the Mass extend not only to the cele- brant and communicant, but to all the faithful. Here I think is one coincidence that is tolerably plain. But let us go further — the "Companion" says" not only for those who are present in the body and communicate, but for all the whole Church.^' Now what is the fair meaning of the expression, "the whole Church," when placed in con- trast with those who are present in the body, but the Church, including those in the body and those out of ii : in other words, "the faithful, whether living or numbered amongst those who have died in the Lord? So that here again, notwithstanding Mr. Coster's disclaimer, there is a very striking coincidence between the " Companion" and the " Catechism of Trent." The more closely you examine the phraseology of this little work, the more evident does this coincidence become. There are two expressions, in words nearly the same, but in meaning widely different; viz., the expressions "present in body" and " present in the body." The former is em- ployed to signify the being personally present in any particular place, as opposed to being there in mind or spirit ; the latter to signify the different condition of the soul, as a tenant of the body or in a disembodied state. You will find this distinction observed in our English fW" »f 1^ 20 a K P L Y . Translation of tlic Scriptures. Thus, St. Paul speaking of being personally present or absent, says, " I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged," &c., (1 Cor. V. 3,) but when referring to the souths presence or absence from the body, he says, " Whilst wo are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord ;*' and again, ** We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent /rom the body and present with the Lord." (2 Cor. V. 6, 8.) So again, (2 Cor. xii. 2,) "Whether in the bodyy I cannot tell," &c. Again, (Heb. xiii. 2,) " As oeing yourselves in the body.^^ Now the author of the " Companion" had his option of these two expressions. Which has he chosen ? That which refers to the soul's relative position as to the body. " Not only," ho says, "for those who are present in the body."*^ In other words, he lias chosen that mode which conveys a sentiment in accordance with the Catechism of Trent. True, he does not say in plain terms, as the Catechism does, " the faith- ful living or numbered amongst those who have died in the Lord ;^^ he employs a softer, less intelligible ex- pression, but one which conveys the same idea, and is therefore better calculated to insinuate this pernicious tenet into the minds of Protestants by familiarizing their ears to a phraseology, which as really though not so ob- viously, conveys it. Here then let me caution the reader against the attempt to impress the mind with the idea that the Collect and the Companion convey a parallel meaning, because both happen to refer to " the whole Church." In the Collect these words mean the " whole militant Church," or as it is expressed in another part of our Communion Service, " the whole state of Christ's Church militant here on earth;" but in the "Companion," if we are to construe terms in their ordinary acceptation, they include the militant Church, and " those who have died in the Lord:" in other words, "Me living and the dead in Christ." H K P L Y. 1^1 aking of . ; yet now the spirit of God mightily working in them, unto obedience to God's will and commandments, thet declare bt THEIR OUTWARD DEEDS AMD LIFE, IN THE SHEWING OF MERCT AMD CHARITT, (which cannot come but of the Spirit of God, and his special grace,) that THET AIIK THE UNDOUBTED CHILDREN OF GoD APPOINTED TO EVERLASTING LIFE. And SO, as by their wickedness and ungodly living they shew them- selves according to the judgment of men, which follow the outward appearance to be reprobates and cast-aways: so now bt their obedience unto God's HOLT WILL, AND BT THEIR MERCIFULNESS AND TENDER PITT, (whcrcin they shew themselves to be like unto God, who is the fountain and spring of ail mercy) thet declare openlt and manifestlt unto the sight of men, THAT THET are THE SONS OF GoD, AND THE ELECT OF HIM UNTO SALVATION. For as the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is good, but the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good fruit ; so the good deeds of man are not the cause that maketh man good, but he is first made good by the spirit and grace of God, that eflfectually worketh in him, and afterward ho bringeth forth good fruits. And then as the good fruit doth argue the soundness of the tree, so doth the good and merciful deed of the man argue and cer- TAINLT PROVE THE GOODNESS OF HIM THAT DOTH IT, aCCOrdiug tO Christ's saj/ings r " Ye shall know them by their fruits." And if any man will object, that evil and naughty men do sometimes by their deeds appear to be very godly and virtuous ; I will answer, so dcth the crab and choak-pcar seem out- wardly to have sometime as fair a red, and as mellow a colour, as the fruit which is good indeed. But he that will bite and take a taste, shall easily judge betwixt the sour bitterness of the one, and the sweet savouriness of the other. And as the true Christian man, in thankfulness of his heart for the redemption of his soul purchased by Christ's death, sheweth kindly by the fruit of liis faith his obedience to God ; so the other, as a merchant with God, doth all for his own gain, thinking to win heaven by the merit of his works, and so defaceth and obscureth the price of Christ's blood, who only wrought our purgati weU perceive, who upon this place writeth on this manner : " Neither doth it seem unto me that James did give this commandment, or that he did set it forth as being received of Christ. For first and foremost, whence had he authority to bind the whole Church, sith that he was only bishop of the Church of Jerrsaleml Except thou wilt say that the same church was at the beginning the iiead church, and consequently that he was the head bishop, which thing the see of Rome will never grant." Johannes Scotus, lib. iv., Sen. Distinct. 17, Quest. 1. The understanding of it then, is as in these words : Confess your sins one to anathert a persuasion to humility, whereby he willeth us to confess ourselves generally unto our neighbours, that we are sinners, according to this saying, " If we say we have XK> sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." And where that tiiey do allege this saying o£ our Saviour Jesus Christ unto the leper, to prove auricular confession to stand on. God's word, " Go thy way and shew thyself unto the priest." Matt. viii. Do they not see the kper was cleansed from his leprosy before he was by Christ sent unto the priest for to shew himself unto biml Br the same reason we must be cleansed from our spiritual leprosy, I MEAN OUR SINS MUST BE FORGIVEN US, BEFORE THAT WE COME TO Confession. What need wk then to tell forth our sins into THE ear or THE PRIEST, SITH THAT THET BE ALREADT TAKEK AWAT ? Therefore holy Ambrose, in his seccHid sermon upon the hundred and nine> teenth Psalm, doth say full well, " Go shew thyself unto the Priest. Who is the true Priest, but he which is the Priest for ever ; t his warrant f C(Histantin> CHuen Eccles. )y the lewd- thing itself What hayb hovoh thby . a curiovs correct akb AMEND THEIR OWN. WUV DO THEY SEEK TO HEAR OF ME WHAT I AM, WHICH WILL NOT HEAR OF THEE WHAT THEY ARE 1 AND HOW CAN THEY TELL, WHEN THEY HEAR BY MB OF MYSELF, WHETHER I TELL THE TRUTH OR NOT, SITH NO MORTAL MAN KNOWETH WHAT IS IN MAN, BUT THE SPIRIT OF MAN WHICH IS IN IIIMI AUOUSTINB WOULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN THUS, IF AURICULAR CONFESSION HAD BEEN USED IN HIS TIME." So speaks the Homily in the passage Mr. Coster has omitted. What stronger terms could be employed to denounce the doctrine of the "Companion?" Can Mr. Coster see nothing here but the rejection of the " sacra- 7nental confession of the Romanist ?^^ Does he not per- ceive that Augustine and Ambrose gave their decision against it hundreds of years before this sacramental con- fession was in existence ? The latter was first authorized by the 4th Lateran Council, in 1215, whereas the Fathers alluded to lived in the fourth Century, eight hundred years before. The intelligent reader must see that the Homily recognizes as of Divine authority only two kinds of con- fession, namely, confession to God, and mutual confes- sion to each other among Christians; and that as to this confession to a Priest, as a necessary thing, or as a means of pardon, it utterly rejects it as contrary to true Christian liberty. Why Mr. Coster should have referred to this Homily, unless it was because it happened to have the word " onfession" mentioned in it, I cannot tell ; but this I do say, and say with confidence, that had he searched the writings of Cranmer, Latimer, or Ridley, of Luther, Calvin, or Zuingle, or even of the despised " Puritans of the I7th Century," he could not have happened upon one that more fully, forcibly, unequivocally and overpower- ingly repudiates the hypothesis which he professes to ground upon it, namely, ^^ If then confession to a Priest is bidden us in the Scriptures and the Word of God, it is a pious custom, being the discharge of a duty which we owe to God. » But I have not yet done with Mr. Coster's quotations. There follow immediately a series of short extracts, selected \0 REPLY. from sundry pages of the 4th Chapter of the VI. Book of Hooker — five of them from the 7th, and one from the 14th section. The object of theso particular sections in Hooker, is to state the views of the Fathers, as well as of the Continental Reformers, upon the subject of Confes- sion ; and it is not a little curious to mark how these little extracts of Mr. Coster are culled from the observations which Hooker makes upon their sundry opinions. The real tendency of these sections is decidedly against the doctrine of the "Companion." In the course of them Hooker discusses the meaning of the texts James v. 14-16, and 1 John i. 9, and proves that they have no reference to confession to a Priest. He shows that Tertullian and Cyprian were no advocates for it. He says : " I dare boldly affirm, that for many hundred years after Christ, the Fathers held no such opinion ; they did not gather by our Saviour's words any such necessity of seeking the Priest's absolution from sin, by secret and (as they now term it,) sacramental confession : public confession they thought neces- sary by way of discipline, not private confession, as in the nature of a sacra- ment, necessary." "'■ And after carefully examining the expressed opinions of the early writers, he winds up thus : "To conclude, we every where find the use of confession, especially public, allowed of and commended by the Fathers ; but that extreme and rigorous necessity of auricular and private confession, which is at this day so mightily upheld by the Church of Rome we find not. It was not then the faith and doctrine of God's Church, as of the Papacy at this present, I. That the only remedy for sin after baptism is sacramental penitency. 2. That confession in secret is an essential part thereof. 3. That God himself cannot now forgive sins without the Priest. 4. That because forgiveness at the hands of the Priest must arise from confession in the offender, therefore to confess unto him is a matter of such necessity as being not either in deed, or at least in desire performed, excludeth utterly from all pardon, and must consequently in Scrip- ture be commanded, wheresoever any promise of forgiveness i« Siade. So, no ; these opinions have youth in their countenance ; antiqv'.ty knew them not ; it never thought or dreamed of them." It is to be regretted that Mr. Coster had not given us a better summary of Hooker's reasonings upon this point, R E PL r. 31 even as it regards the opinions of the early Fathers ; but more especially, that when he had gone so far as the 14th section of the Chapter from whence his selections are made, he had not advanced one page further, and given what, to us, one would suppose, must be far more interesting, viz.. Hooker's views as to the doctrine of the Church of England upon the subject, which are as follow : "[16.] It standcth with us, in the Church of England, as touching public confession, thus : First. Seeing day by day wc in our Church begin our public prayers to Al- mighty God with public acknowledgment of our sins, in which confession every man prostrate as it were beforo His glorious Majesty, crieth guilty against himself; and the Minister with one sentence pronounceth universally all clear, whoso acknowledgment so made hath proceeded from a true penitent mind ; what reason is there every man should not under the general terms of confes- sion represent to himself his own particulars whatsoever, and adjoining there- unto that affection which a contrite spirit worketh, embrace to as full effect the words of Divine grace, as if the same were severally and particularly uttered with the addition of prayers, imposition of hands, or all the ceremonies and solemnities that might be used for the strengthening of men's affiance in God's particular mercy towards them ? Such compliments are helps to sup- port our weakness, and itot causes that ssrve to procure or produce HIS GIFTS. If with us there be " truth in the inward parts," as David speaketh, the difference of general and particular forms in confession and absolution is not so material, that any man's safety or ghostly good should depend upon it. And for private confession and absolution it standeth thus with us : The Minister's power to absolve is publicly taught and professed, the Church not denied to have authority either of abridging or en! urging the use and exercise of that power, upon the people tio auck neceaaity imposed of opening their tranagressiona unto men, aa if remtaaion of aina otherwise were impoaaibk; neither any such opinion had of the thing itself, as though it were either unlawful or unprofitable, saving only for these inconveniences, which the world hath by experience observed in it heretofore. And in regard thereof, the Church of England hitherto hath thought it the aafer way to refer men'a hidden crimes unto God and themselvea otily,- howbeit, not with- out special caution for the admonition of such as come to the holy sacrament, and for the comfort of such as are ready to depart the world." Whoever carefully examines this latter paragraph in reference to private confession, will perceive that the 22 RE PLT. I .; Church of England, in Hooker's estimation ^ imposes no necessity upon her people to open their transgressions to men; and while she makes a special provision for the comforts of those who are about to approach the sacra- ment, or are drawing near to death, by permitting them, at their own earnest request, to have the benefit of abso- lution and godly counsel, she deems it " the safer way^^ as her general rule^ to refer me7i's hidden crimes unto God and themselves only. If any man can see in these sentiments the doctrine of the "Companion," that the "best means of obtaining pardon and amending our lives is to confess our sins to a Priest," all I can say is, that he pos- sesses that species of second sight, which is adapted to the meridian of superstition, but which, by men of science, is rightly considered an evidence of a disordered imagination. ' I proceed to the fifth and last quotation from my letter. i «5th. At page 123, it is said, " this sacrament should be received fasting." " It is for the honour of so high a sacrament, that the precious body of Christ should first enter before any other meat" Again, the words of Cyril, p. 123, " Let every one be careful to keep it, for whosoever carelessly loses any part of it, had better lose a part of himself." Is not the implication in both these passages, more in harmony with the Church of Rome, than with that of England!" Upon this quotation Mr. Coster remarks: r •^ « To make this extract a fair one. Dr. Gray should have stated that the first of the two passages are the words, not of the author of the " Companion," but of St. AuocsTiKE." , ,. . How such a statement as Mr. Coster here says I ought to have made, could render my extract a "fair one," I do not understand, unless he means it would have furnished him with a fair opportunity of passing encomiums upon St. Augustine, which at present have rather the appear- ance of being forced into his composition. The first extract I have given, and which states the rule for us in this liiii mn REPLY. 33 matter, does not contain the words of St. Augustine, but of the author of the " Companion ;" and tlie second, as it stands in the "Companion," and was quoted therefrom, is strictly the language of the " Companion," though it em- bodies in an altered form Augustine's words. The whole passage in the "Companion" is as follows: " This Sacrament should bo received fasting. So was the practice of the Universal Church, says St. Augustine, which is authority enough (in things of this nature, namely, circumstances of time, &c.) to satisfy any that do not love contention, 1 Cor.xi. 16. Yet it will not lie amiss in a word to shew the reasonableness of this catholic usage. And the first reason may be this; because our minds are clearest, our devotion quickest, and so wc fittest to per- form this most high service, when we are in our virgin spittle, as Tortullian expresses it. A second is this ; it is for the honour of so high a Sacrament, that the precious Body of Christ should first enter into the Christian's mouth before any other meat." What St. Augustine is here represented as affirming is, that it Was the practice of the universal Church to take the Sacrament in this way. The "quod semper," how- ever, cannot be designed to be included in this testimony : for it is evident that, " from the first," it was not so. If men feel that by going to the Sacrament "fasting," they can go in a more elevated frame of devotion, there is no- thing in this practice to be condemned : but it is a thing entirely optional. What is to be condemned is, the lay- ing down a rule for the members of the Church of England, that it ought so to be ; and when this rule comes to be enforced upon us, by the authority of St. Augustine, while our Prayer Books do not teach it, our Articles enjoin it, or our Homilies inculcate it; and when, above all, we find that at the very first celebration of the Lord'^s Supper, it was administered to the disciples by the blessed Re- deemer, in immediate connexion with a Feast instead of a Fastf we must be permitted to say, we have a higher rule to guide us than that of the " Companion^" or any Saints that lived in the 4th Century. * ;. ^ • r .-i U £ P LY. ! I I ' And when we look at the second reason assigned in the "Companion" for the practice of which Augustine speaks, and which appears to be expressed partly in his own words, namely, that "i7 is for the honour of so high a Sacrament that the precious body of Christ should first enter into the Christian's mouth before any other meatj* we are strengthened in our conviction, that all the rules which can be gathered from Councils and Fathers, how- ever venerable the one, or holy the others, arc only so far worthy of reception as they are based upon the infallible standard of God's word. We are contented, in this in- stance, to render precisely the same honour to " the Sacra- ment" which our Divine Master and His disciples did. We wish to descend no lower; we wish to rise no higher; but when we find a book like the "Companion'' employ- ing such terms as these, "// is for the honour of so high a Sacrament that the precious body of Christ should first enter the Christian's mouth before any other meat;'* and when we compare this with another passage on the preceding page, "// is not man that maketh the body and blood of Christ by consecrating the holy elem,entSj but Christ that was crucified for us;" we see enough to warn us that we may have safer guides than the " Companion," to teach us the precise degree of honour which we ought to attach to this Sacrament. Mr. Coster attempts to draw a parallel between this language and that of our Church, v/here she directs the candidates for Baptism to prepare for it with prayer and fasting; but there is no parallel between them. The difference is at once obvious. The one is recommended as a means of humiliation, to assist in acquiring moral qualifications ; the other, as an act of homage to the sacramental emblems, which the author, in common with the Church of Rome, appears to regard with superstitious veneration. "We must load the Sacraments," is the well-known maxim of men who belong to the Romanizing school, and he must REPLY. 35 be wanting in discernment indeed who does not trace the principles of that school in this anonymous production entitled "The Companion to tlie Prayer Book.'* The extract from Cyril is of the same character. "Ze/ every one be careful to keep ily for whosoever loses any part of it, had better lose a part of himself." "/ can see nothing implied in these ivords,*^ says Mr. Coster, " beyond reverence m handling the symbol of Christ's blessed body.'* Yes, there is more than reverence; there is alarm — there is terror — there is superstition. Tell me that the symbol of my Saviour's blessed body should be handled reverently, and you recall to my mind the sacred object it represents. Tell me that if, inadvertently, I drop a single crumb of it, I incur a penalty worse than having a part of myself excinded, and you suggest a totally dif- ferent train of thought. You lead me to apprehend that it is not bread I am taking into my hands, that it is some- thing else, that some mysterious change has passed upon it ; you transfer my reverence from the Archetype to the type ; you make it more than reverence ; it amounts to superstitious dread ; and for this I can find no sanction in my Bible, no countenance in my Prayer Book, and no- thing parallel to it in the Rubrics which direct "the minister reverently to place what remaineth of the consecrated elements upon the table, or the people reverently to eat the same." Notwithstanding then that the above extract contains the words of " Cyril" — notwithstanding the Homily styles him "CyrilluSf an old and holy doctor" — notwithstanding the Council at Ephesus anathematized Ibas, for questioning his orthodoxy — notwithstanding the learned author of the " Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy" quotes him several times upon other subjects; yea, not- Withstanding Mr. Coster should anathematize, as a race of modern Puritans, all who will not bow to Cyril's infal- libility, we must beg to dissent from the sentiment ex- pressed in the above extract, as calculated to mislead the 36 REPLY. IJ judgment, and convey a false impression in regard to the sacred emblems to which it refers. •' '- ; t'.-i What now remains lo concluding paragraph. considered? Mr. Coster's !i:£ " Having thus shewn how utterly groundless all of Dr. Gray's five objec- tions really are, tha two passages being altered in the way I have suggested, I can safely leave it to the members of the Church and tiie Church Society, to decide whether 'h^ teaching of ihis little book is of so objectionable a char- acter as to justify vhat has bcci; both said and done respecting it." My objections, it appears are utterly groundless ! How is this proved? Wi.y, two passages which I have object- ed to are to be altered as Mr. Coster has suggested, the necessity of the alteration proving: the groundlessness of my objections ! ! And the other three are to be proved groundless, by misrepresentations of the teaching of the Prayer Book, of Hooker, and the Homilies. And why is this siixgular process, by a sad misnomer called proving, to be resorted to ? Because Mr. Cosier does not like to labour " under *he imputation of being the introducer of improper books." Very natural. Then let him beware ho%v he incurs it. If he imports such books, and places them, without authority, in the Depositories of the Church Society, he must bear the imputation. He will never escape it by endeavouring to prove that bad books are good ones, that error is truth, that heresy is orthodoxy. This is what Mr. Coster has attempted to 'lo on i;be pre- sent occasion, and of all the documents of a polemical nature that ever met my observation, I never exainined one so wanting in sound argument, and accurato quota- tions as h?s " Defence of the Companion to the Prayer Book." His r/^otives I touch not. To his own Master he stands or fails. But supposing his intentions right, he displays such a wp.nt of acquaintance with the subject in debate, so glaring a misapprehension of the authors he quotes, that in any future publication he m^y issue, no I REPLY. 37 man ought to feel the slightest reliance upon his siatements, until he has had the opportunity of testing their claims, by a careful examination of the authors to which he refers. It has been my unpleasant task to detect and expose the falla*. "?s of his statements. My aim has been, not per- sonal offenco to Mr Coster, but to guaid all whom I can influence, against the principles of the books he defends. Those principles I regard as opposed to the teaching of Scripture, contrary to the tenets of our Church, dishonour- able to God, and destructive to the souls of men. Viewing them in this light, I have no doubt as to its being my duty, be the consequences what they may, to reject thrm myself, and to warn others against them — ^yes, and further still, to prevent as far as my efforts can do it, our Church Society from beinr made the instrument of disseminating them. It is, I conocive, a deplorable thing to see an Association bearing a title which designates it as a representative of the Church of England in this Colony, disseminating with one hand, tlis doctrines of that Church, and with the other, the tenets of the Church of Rome. It is deplorable, because the two systems cannot both be right. They are upon many essential points diametrically opposed to each other. The Society, therefore, that attempts to propagate them both cannot last long. " A house divided against itself cannot stand ;" and, while it lasts, it can do comparatively but little good. ^^ if the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to the battle ?" And why then paralyze the efforts of such a Society, when there is one simple process by which the whole difficulty might be ob- viated — when there is a venerable Society (the Society for promoting Christian Knovrledge,) whose third jubilee we have lately celebrated, which selects under careful revi- sion, books upon every subject connected with religion, and places them in the hands of subscribers in a better form, and at a cheaper rate than any other Society v hat- ever ? She speaks the voice of our Church. Why not 38 REPLY. 'i . ii i i i! be satisfied w ith her teaching ? If these other pubHcations di^er from her, are they right ? If they accord with her, are they ntcessaryl Are they jo necessary, that it is worth while to keep the Church Society in constant colU- sion, and hazard its very being, in order to make it the instrument of disseminating them, when every man in the Diocese is at Uberty, if he chooses it, to get them through other channels ? Men may speak of peace, and profess to love it, but they mistake the road that leads to it, while they pursue this course. They are endeavouring, in a voluntary Association, to compel a large portion of its members to go beyond those common principles upon which all are agreed, and thus to be mar'e the yielding, temporizing, I may say, degraded instruments of dissemi- nating tenets which they a^hor. The attempt is a fruitless one. If my efforts, and the efforts of those who th' ik with me can prevent it, it never will succeed ; if they tail, we shall retire from the arena, leaving, not willingly, but of necessity, Mr. Coster to enjoy the satisfaction he may be able to extract from the consciousness, that he has broken to pieces a Society, which might have flourished long, and flourishing, diffused on every hand, the blessings of the Gospel of Peace. ovMJ.ncfrr -i;,' Note. — The latter clause of M". Coster's last paragraph having been placed on its right footing by Dr. Bayard, I think it unnecessary to say a single word in reply to it. ■^ im APPENDIX. lA f ^^'ZC ac^ ^ ^cX^ ic ^t>&t-M^ /Vi^c^>t m AT TEND IX. [That the Readers of the precedins pases may havn the opportunity of romparins my e.vtrarts from Mr. f.'ost, iviscil attack upon some of the Books which had been imported for the Diocesan Church Society, at the late Anni- versary Meeting of that Society, he called upon the Rev. Dr. I. W, D. Gray, as his spiritual instructor, to state to tiie meeting his opinion of one of thcni, which he then held in his hand, the " Companion to the Prayer-book." In answer to that call Dr. Gray did give his opinion of that work, and as nearly as I can re- collect, it was in these words: " In my opinion the doctrines contained in that " book are not in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England, " but arc in accordance with those of the Church of Rome." AVithin the last few days I have been permitted to see and transcribe the five extracts, with his remarks upon them, which Dr. Gray brings forward in support of the charge he thus preferred. As I am the person chiefly reflected upon for the importation of these books (and no one likes to be under the imputation of being the introducer of improper books), I mean in the following pages to shew, which I feel confident I shall be able to do to the satisfaction of every candid mind, that the " Companion to the Prayer-book" is not fairly obnoxious to the chargo of being as to its doctrines, as Dr. Gray says, " not in accordance with the doc- " irines of the Church of England, but in accordance with those of the Church "of Rome J' I should, however, observe in the outset, that the words " of Rome" should, I think, have been inserted by the author in the first extract, though the sense is sufficiently obvious without them ; and that in the fourth of them, the superlative " the best," an unguarded expression as it seems to me, should have been altered by him to the pos^.tive " a good," or have been qualified by some such words as "one of," or "next to confession to God." " The Companion to the Prayer-book" is taken almost word for word from a very celebrated work, the " Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer," by Bishop Sparrow, one of the best Ritualists that the Church of England has produced. He lived during the stormy period of the Great Rebellion, and was expelled from his College at Cambridge, by the Puritans, in 1643, for refusing to subscribe to the Solemn League and Covenant. Soon after the Restoration he was promoted from the Archdeaconry of Sudbury to the See of Exeter, and afterwards translated to that of Norwich. He was deeply read in ritual matters, and compiled a collection of Articles, Injunctions, Canons, &c., which is highly Ill , I '^1 42 APPENDIX. ^1 '. I" e t esteemed. I mention these particulars to shew that this excellent little book i» not the production of any mean or incompetent person, nor of any one in any way connected with what is called, the modern llomanizing school. Excellent as the work nally is, it hardly excites surprise that, as the author was himself persecuted and ejected from his preferments hy the Puritans of the 17th cen- tury, his book should be assailed and cried down by their successors of the 19th. That it is of jixxxe protestant quality, notwithstanding all that is said against it wo have abundant evidence at the very commencement of it. The l^rst eight pages arc filled with a noble extract from Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. This is followed by a short histoiiicai. notice, the first sentence of which is in ex- act accordance with the 24th Article ; but not by any means in accordance with Roman doctrine. It says, " The Service-books of every Church were ori- " ginally composed in the language of the people for whoso use they were in- " tended." The teaching to be derived from this passage obviously is, that the Service-books ought to be continued in the same language in which they were at first written, that is, in the language of the people who have to use them ; or in the words of the Article, that " Public Prayer in the Church should not be " in a tongue not tinderstandcd of the people," which in the Church of Rome it is. Again, in the Preface, p. 21, is another passage which, though in accord- ance with our 31 st Article, is entirely repugnant to the Roman doctrine, against which that Article is a protest, viz., that " in the sacrifice of the Mass the Priest " ofTers Christ for the quick and the dead ;" or as the Catechism of Trent ex- presses it, that " its benefits extend not only to those who communicate, but " also to ail the faithful whether living or numbered among those who have died " in the Lord, but whose sins have not yet been fully expiated." The passage is as follows : " This public service is accepted of God, not only for those who " arc present and say Amen to it; but for all those that arc absent \x\)onjust " cause, even for all that do not renounce communion with it and the Church : " for it is the common service of them all, commanded to be oilcred up in the " name of them all, and agreed to by all of them to be offered up for them all, " and therefore is accepted for all them, though presented to God by the Priest " alone." Here mention is made of the present and the absent, but not a word of the DEAD ! And it will be found that it retains this same Protestant char- acter throughout. I shall in each case give at full length the passage to which Dr. Gray objects, as he sets it out, wore' for word, and the remarks he makes upon it ; putting in italics those words which he quotes as the words of the author, and leaving those which are his own not so distinguished. 1st. "In a note to p. 87 it is asserted to be the oflScc of the Christian Priest " to make an atonement for the people, and that with a view to make the people "understand this, the Church orders that when thus making an atonement for " them, and qffering up for them the passion of Christ, the Priest should say " the prayer secretly mystically. Surely this teaching is at variance with tho ** doctrines of our Prayer-book, and derogatory to the honor of Christ." That Dr. Gray mistakes the teaching of this passage is perfectly clear from this simple fact, that his extract, to all appearance, makes the Author of the " Companion" to say that "/Ac Church" of England "orders that the Priest should say the prayer secretly mystically,-" whereris he actually says in express terms that " this Church " of England " does not order the Priest to say these prayers secretly" I will transcribe the whole note : " The reason of these secreta, secret prayers said by the Priest, may be partly « for Tariety to refresh the people, but, chiefly, as I conceive, that by this course " the people might be taught to understand and reverence the office of the " Priest, which is to make an atonement for the people, and to present their " prayers to God, by that very offering of them, making them more acceptable " to Crod ; all of which depends not upon the people's consent or confirmation APPENDIX. 43 Priest people ent for uld say ith the lar from of the Priest exprea* ly these e partly course of the it their ;eptable mation < of his oflice, but upon GoiVs alono appointment and institution, who hath set ' him apart to these offices of olT'uring gifts and sacrifices for the people. And ' therefore as it was appointed by God, that when Aaron by his priestly clfico < was to offer for the people and make an atonement for them, none of the pco- ' pie were to be present; so the Church orders that at some times, when the « Priest is making an atonement for the people, and oilbring up for them and ' the acceptation of thoir prayers, the merits and passion of Christ, none should ' seem actually to assist, but the Priest should say it secretly and mystically. ' The Church of England is generally in her Common Prayers, as for an hum* ♦ ble, 80 for an audible voice, especially in the Lord's prayer, appointing it to bo ' said, in the Hubric before it, with a loud, that is, an audible voice, not secretly: •' and this for the more earnest repetition of so Divine words, and to make them " more familiar to the people. But though this Church does not order the Priest " to say these prayers secretly, yet she retains the same order of offering up by " the Priest in Collects following the people's foregoing supplications." The fact is that Dr. Gray passes over the sentence which does relate to the Church of England, because it would not suit his purpose, and applies to her one which relates not to her, but as I conceive to the Church of Rome. When the Author says that the office of Priest is "to make an atonement for the people," he speaks of that office in the general; and in describing the office of the Priest such expressions arc very common with our best, soundest, most Protestant divines, as for instance Dr. Thomas Jackson, one of the ablest oppo- nents of Popery the Church of England has produced. He says that " to be a " Priest implies as much as to be a Mediator or Intercessor for averting God's " wrath, or an Advocate for procuring his favours and blessings." Commcnta- taries, b. 11, c. 2. With respect to the Jewish Priest it is said in Scripture re- peatedly, as 1 Chron. vi. 49, " That Aaron and his Sons were appointed to make •* an atonement for Israel." And Hooker says, Book 6, s. 78, " that a Priest i> " a Clergyman who offcreth sacrifice to God. The Fathers of the Church of " Christ call usually the ministry of the Gospel Priesthood, in regard of that " which the Gospel hath proportionably to ancient sacrifices, namely the Com- " munion of the blessed body and blood of Christ, although it hath properly no " sacrifice." The Author says that when the Jewish Priest was to make an atonement for the people, as was appointed by God, none of the people were to be present. And further that in the Church of Rome (for I conceive that the Church of Rome is meant by "the Church" in the passage which Dr. Gray quotes, because Wheatly says, p. 155, that " it is a custom there" (in the Romish Church) "for the Priest at all the long Prayers" (the Collects as opposed to the preceding short Versicles) " to kneel before the altar, and mutter them over softly to himself") when the Priest is offering up the passion of Christ, thai none should seem actually to assist, the Church orders him to say the prayers secretly mystically. But when he speaks of the Church of Eng- land, not a syllabic does he say of making atonement, not a word of offering up the passion of Christ, but simply declares, with a view, to all appearance, to putting a negative on all such conceits, that this Church does not order the Priest to say these prayers secretly, though she does retain the order of offering up by the Priest in Collects, following the People's foregoing supphcations ; "the Minster," as Wheatly says, "collecting into short forms the people's pe- titions which had before been divided between him and them by Versicles and responses." Dr. Gray's extracts are very often very unfairly made. Whoever will conde- scend to quote as unfairly as he habitually does, may find, in any book he lays his hands upon, " teaching at variance with the doctrines of our Prayer-book," and even in Holy Scripture itself, teaching "derogatory to the honor of Christ!" 2d. " Again, p. 126, two Collects in our Post-Communion service are said to " teach that the great benefits of the Sacrament are remission of sins, and yet " other things, and thai not only for those who are present in the body and com- 44 APPENDIX m mI " munieatc, hut fin- all the whole Chu. -h. Now is this rcnlly the doctrine of " the Collects ? The Cutechisnt of Trent sayti, • Such \a tlic cllicacy of thiw "'sacrifice (the Musk) tliat its l»enefits cxtoiui not or»ly to tiic celebrant and « ' communicunt, but also to all the faithful whether living or nunibercil amongst "< those who have died iu the Lord, but whose sins have not yet been fully cx- '<< plated.' But where in the beautiful language of the Collects in question do •« wc find such a doctrine as this." In answer to Dr. Gray's first question, I say tliat in the passage he quotes from the " Companion," there is not only the doctrinj of the Collect, but its very language almost word for word. To she*- this, I will place the extract from the " Companion" and one from fhe Collect in parallel columns — the identity of the language will liicn be clearly seen. Collect. " That we anil all iliy whole Church may obtain rfiiiissloii of our aiiis, and all other Companion. " The great iH'nelils of ihe Sacrament are "remission of iiina, and yet other things, "and that not oiily for those who are pre- " buncflts of hid pasaion "Rent in the body and coniniunicate, but " for all the whole Church." This is a satisfactory answer to the first question. Before I can as satisfac- torily answer the second, I shall have to transcribe the whole paragraph from which Dr. Gray makes his extract: " Two Collects ''>X'^>"<>i whii'li th.iy Hhcwud to thu niisurulilu utHit.tud inenihurs nt* " Chrirtt, in the relieviiiK. helpin},', and Huccoiirin)^ them with tiic-ir temporal jjoodrt in " this life, obtained God' n favour, and were dear, aceeptalile and pleaAitnt in his MiKht; so *' now they themselves take phiunure in the t'rnition ot' (Jod in the pleasant joya of "lieaveni and arc also in God'n eternal icord net before at, ax i^erfcet euimjileii ener before " our eije^i, both how ice may please God, in this our vioritt life, and aldu how we may come •' to liee in joy with them in ercrlustinir pleasure aid felicity." (This is, I presume, re- " cnivu a Krucious ahsolution at the day of ju(lt;nie:it.) " For most true is that Buying " which St. Augustine hatli, that the gininir of alms and relierinjr of the poor is the right " way to heaven. Via cwli pauper est: the poor man, saith he, is the way to hearen. They " used in times past to set in the hi^liway sides the picture of Mercury pointin;; with " his linuer wliicli was the rifiht way to the town. Hut (Jod's word (as rSt. AugUKtino " saith) hath set in the way to hearentUc poor man and liis house, so that whoso will go "aright thither, and not turn out of the way, must go by the poor. The poor man is that " Mercury that shall set us tlie ready way; and if weloolt W(!ll to this mark, we shall •' not wander much out of the right wnv. I''or so .saith the Wise Man, he which sheweth • to the •)r, doth lay hi hank to the Lord, fo lar •itercst ( *' merry i "the gain lieing cliietiy tlie posses " Saviour Jesus Christ " (I presume tliat none will gain possession of the life ever- lasting, unless tiiey receive a gracious absolution at the day of judgment.) Dr. Gray asks whether this teaching is in harmony with our 11th and 12th Articles ? I shall leave the Hoinilist to answer tiiis question, begging Dr. Gray to rcntember that the learnetl IJishop Jewel is that person. Mr. LcBas, in his life of tliat eminent Prelate (publi.slicd by the Society for promoting Christiaii Knowledge), tells us, p. 18G, that " in 1571 Archl)i.shop Parker felt it expedient " to raise, if possible, an eflective barrier against the deluge of innovations " which Cartwright (the Puiitan) was letting loose upon the land. He accord- " ingly submitted the matter to the Bishops assembled in Convocation, and the " result of their deliberations was an unanimous resolution that the Articles of " 1563" (which Jewel had assisted in revising) "should be printed under the " supervision of the Bishop of Salisbury" (Jewel). So that wc find the same person, and he well qualified for the task, at once the Author of the Homily, the Reviser of the Articles, and the Supervisor of the printing of them. " But here," continues the Homily, "some will say unto us, If almsgiving and our " charitable works towards the poor be able to wash away sins, to reconcile us to tjod, " to deliver us from the peril of damnation, and make us the sons and heirs of God's " kingdom" (in the words of the "Companion," to procure us a gracious absolution at the day of judgment), "then are Christ's merits defaced, and his blood shed in vain; " then are we justitied by works, and by our deeds may wo merit heaven: then do we in "vain believe tliat Christ died to put awuy our sins, and that he rose for our justification "as St. Paul teacheth." All which is the doctrine of the llth and 12th Articles. He then shews how the doctrines harmonize, and concludes thus: "Alms deeds do wash " away our sins" (do procure us a gracious absolution at the day of judgment) "because " God doth vouchsafe then to repute us clean and pure, when we do them for his sake, " and not because they deserve or merit our purging, or for that they have any such "strength and virtue in themselves." Now as the Author of the "Companion" has not asserted any thing like this, his teaching harnioni/.es with the Homily; and as the Homily harmonizes with the Articles, the teaching of tiio "Companion" does of course harmonize with the Articles also. 4 th. " At page 157. To confess our sins to a Priest even in health is a pious "and ancient custom, and not only a sign of repentance, but the best means of " obtaining pardon and am.nditig our Hoes. The Prayer-book recommends in " a certain specified case * opening our grief to a Minister of God's word,' or ' re- " cciving absolution' at his hands with a view to * a quiet con.s-cience.' But I " cannot see that this is identical with saying that the best way to obtain par- " don and amendment of life is to confess our sins to a Priest." I have already said that I look upon " the best" in this passage as an unguard- ed expression. It would have been well if the Author had left the adjective in the positive state " a good," instead of raising it as he has done to the super- lative degree " the best :" or if he had qualified it by the addition of some such words as " one of the best," or " next to confession to God the best," However, Dr. Gray admits that " the Prayer-book docs recommend in a certain specified " case opening our giicf to a Minister of God's word, or receiving absolution at /, 46 APPENDIX, H " his liaiuln with o view to n quiet conRcicnrc." Tho place where these words nre to be lound is tlic Exhortation in the Communion Service. But docH Dr. Gray nicnn to say that this is the only place in the Authorized Forniularios of tho Ciiiirdi in which the sulijcct is mentioned ? That there is only one certain s])cc!jUd cme in wliich oi)ening grief to a Minister is recommended by tho C'hurcii J That liierc is only one view with respect to which receiving absolu- tion is recommended by the Church ! 'J'hat there is nothing said in any of the Authorized Formularies expressly about Cuiifcssion to a Priest in health us well as in sickness? nothing about benefits to result from it] nothing about Almtlutlun and its benefits ] Arc the great Church writers when setting forth and expounding her doctrines silent about Confession and Absolution, and is every thing comprised in that one artuin specified case? Let us sec whether any thing is said on this subject in tho Book of Homilies — let us see what f^odlji and wholesume doctrine is to be found in the Homily of *' liErENTANCE AND Ol' TIIUE KkCONCILIATIOX WITH GoU." "Now," pays the Hnniily, "there l)e four imrts of repcntniirc, wliicli IminR set " toKiitliur limy l)e likcneil to an easy and slinrt Inddcr, wliort.-hy wu may cliiiili from the " liottomlusH pit of |)ur(liti(iii, that we cnHt nuriiclvtis into hy our daily ofluiR-eM ami " grievous sins, iij) to the cusllc or lower of eternal and endless salvation." — "Tho "second of ihoin is, nn unfeigned confession and arknowlcdsiiiK of our sins to God — " for without this confession sin is not forgiven. This then Is tin; chii-fcxt and most "principal (not the o»///, hut the chiefest and most principal) confession tliat in tiio " Hcriptures and word of liod we are bidden to iiiakc, and witliont the which we shall " never olitnin pardon and forgiveness of our sins. Indeed lu'sides this there is another " kind of Confession which is needful and necessary. And of the same doth Haint "James speak after this manner, saying, 'acknowledge your faults one to another, and " pray one for another that ye may he saved.' As if he should say, open that whicli " grieveth yt)U that remedy niay he foun