,%. ^-v. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) fe 1.0 I.I miM- 111 Hi Ui yjji2.2 ^ 1^ 12.0 •^ IflH^H L25 III 1.4 IIIIIJ4 Riotographic Sciences Corporation 33 WIST MAIN STRUT WHSTIR.N.Y. MSIO (716)|73.4!03 \^4^, & CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/iCMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Instituta for Historical IVIicroraproductions / Inatitut Canadian da microraproductiona historiquan :\ Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas techniques et bibliographiques "he Institute has attempted to obtain the bnst original copy available for filming. Features of this copy whicb may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D n D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pelliculie I — I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ ReliA avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along inter'.or margin/ Lareliure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou da la distorsion 1* long de la marge int4ri«ure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches aiouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, loraque cela itai* possible, ces pages n'ont pas *H filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplimentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplbire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci dessous. I I Coloured pages/ v/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolor^es, tacheties ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages ditachies Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Qualit* inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible 1 s 1 V d e b rl ri n Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc.. have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure. etc., ont M filmtes A nouveau de faqon A obtenir la mailleure image possible. This Item Is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiimi au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X XX y tax 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X lils lu difier ine age The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion or the bacit cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grflce A la gintrositA de: La bibliothdque des Archives pubiiques du Canada Les Lmages suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6. et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmir en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illuetration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fllmto en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols ▼ 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, 'eft to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartec, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmts A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film* A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche it droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'Images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. ita lure. ] !X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ■^pp ■^. ^mtmmm mm TWO LETTERS to THE LORD BISHOP OF TORONTO. IN REPLY TO CHARGES BBOCOBT BT THE LORD BISHOP OF HURON AGAINST THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING Of TRINITY COLLEGE, TORONTO. ■r GEORGE WHITAKER, M.A., PB0T08T Of TBIMITT COLLBQB. % TO WHICH IS PHiriMD THE LETTER OF THE BISHOP OF HURON TO THB MBMBBRS OP THE BXBCCTIVB COMMITTBE OF THE SYNOD OF HIS DIOCKSE. TORONTO : ROWSBLL & ELLIS, PRINTERS. 1860. Mi Hi 1 1 THE SECOND LETTER OF THE LORD BISHOP OF HURON. THE BISHOP OF HURON TO THE CLERICAL AND LAY GENTLEMEN COMPOSING THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE DIOCESE OF HURON. My Reverend Brethren and Brethren, — Your resolution requesting me to lay before the Diocese the proofs upon which I have formed the opinion which I expressed, concerning the teaching of Trinity College, Toronto, has been placed in my hands. In compliance with your request, I now proceed to redeem the pledge which I gave in my pastoral, of making known to the clergy and laity of my Diocese, the grounds of my opinion, whenever called upon to do so. Some time after my return from England, in 1858, some graduates in Trinity College applied to me for ordination, and it became my duty to examine them. I perceived that the views of some of these gentlemen, more particularly con- cerning the character and doctrines of the Church of Rome, were not such as I had always entertained. I sought out the cause of this, and after a good deal of examination and enquiry, I was led to the conclusion that the views held by these gentlemen were traceable to the teaching to which they had been subjected, during their university course. The mode of teaching, as described to ino, appeared to be highly objectionable, and the matter taught was in my view most dangerous to all students, more especially to young men preparing for the ministry. I shall now direct attention to these two points, the mode of teaching, and the things taught. In order that I should not fall into any error concerning 1 m 2 the mode of teaching in the University, I addressed, by letter, several gentlemen who have been connected with Trinity College, and I forwarded to each of them a list of questions, to which I requested candid and plain answers. The following are the questions and answers, from which you may form your own >r'inion, as to the mode of impart. ^ ing religious instruction to young men in Trinity College. 1. Was the attendance on the lectures on catechism compulsory ? 2. Did the Provost at each lecture dictate questions and answers from his own manuscript ? 3. Did the students write both questions and answers as he dictated them ? 4. Were the students expected on the next lecture day to read the answers as the Provost had dictated them ? 6. Did you ever know the Provost to lend his manuscript to a student to correct his notes taken down at lecture ? 6. Are there any copies of the manuscript thus corrected handed down from class to class ? And is the book familiarly known among the students as "The Provost's Catechism?" 7. Did the Provost ever express his disapproval of the use of these note books ? 8. Are you aware whether a proposition to publish the manuscript was ever made by any one of the students, and what was the Provost's reason for disapproving of its publication ? The following answers are from a layman residing in the diocese of Toronto. The answers are numbered to correspond with the questions. Answer 1. — Attendance on the lectures is fully as com- pulsory as on any other lecture prescribed. Ans. 2. — Yes ; it is the Provost's regular mode of pro- ceeding to dictate questions and answers. Ans. 3. — No ; that would be impossible at the rate the Provost is accustomed to go on. One of the first things a student does after entering is (on advice) to secure a copy of the manuscript, which invariably corresponds, almost 3 verbatim, with that which the Provost uses, except in some instances it may not perhaps be so full. As each studcint enters the lecture room, he brings his own or another's copy of the manuscript, which he places on the table before him, in the presence of the Provost, leaving it closed until the questions dictated on the last lecture day are answered or disposed of. Then he opens his manuscript, and follows the Provost as far as he goes, marking, at the same time, if he notices any error or mistake. Apart from this, he writes neither questions nor answers, nor does he take notes, which must be quite apparent to the Provost, Ans. 4. — Yes ; that is the plan pursued, and never, in my experience, did I witness an answer as recorded in these manuscripts prove to be incorrect ; but I have known other answers refused, when they did not suit the Provost's views, or, as he said, " were not the answers I gave." Ans. 5. — No ; but I have heard he did so ; but whether he did or not, the perfect agreement of both proves that we have got a correct copy. Ans. 6. — These copies now in use arc positively correct copies of the Provost's, as far as they go. They are handed down from class to class. The freshman, for whose benefit the catechism is designed, either copies one for himself, or has one given him by some of the students who have preceded him. I have been asked repeatedly l)y the students, " How do you like the Provost's catechism ?" Ans. 7. — I have never heard him do so. Ans. 8. — I don't know. These statements are perfectly true, and can be proved in the most solemn manner. I now proceed to give the answers of a clergyman in the Diocese of Huron. Alts. 1. — Attendance was compulsory. Ans. 2. — The Provost at each lecture asked questions, evidently from his own manuscript, upon the notes which ho had dictated at the previous lecture, and of course the answers had to be taken from his notes. Ans. 3. — The students used ( very means to acquire the w answers which the Provost required, and when they found that they had not the exact answer in their manuscript, they took down the answer given by him. Ans. 4. — The students were required to give correct answers, taken from the Provost's notes, to the questions asked by him. Ans. 5. — ^Never ; but he lent his questions sometimes. Ans. 6. — There is a catechism, question and answer, in common use among the students, handed down from class to class, and familiarly known as *• The Provost's Catechism." Ans. 7. — ^Never that I knew of. Ans. 8. — I have heard the students speaking of wishing to have the catechism published, but I do not remember the Provost's objections. The next answers are from a layman resident in the Diocese of Toronto : Ans. 1. — ^Yes ; the Provost required an excuse for absence on every occasion. Ans. 2. — The Provost lectured from his manuscript, and asked questions on the next day for lecture. He has frequently said, when a question has not been answered satisfactorily, "that is not what I gave you." His questions were written as well as his lectures. Ans. 3. — Some of them took notes ; others would have their predecessor's books, and would only follow him while reading, and see that they were correct. Ans. 4. — We generally answered in his own words, and if not, as nearly as possible. Ans. 5. — He lent his questions on the catechism on one or two occasions, and his notes on the articles. I cannot answer positively as to his notes on the catechism. Ans. 6. — The manuscript, with an exact copy of 'his questions, (as taken by Mr. Wm. Jones, now of Cambridge,) and the answers, as collected (answer No. 3) were handed down. When I entered in 1856, I procured a book from Mr. W. Jones, from which to copy a manuscript for myself. It was always spoken of as "The Provost's Catechism." Ans. 7. — I never heard of any disapproval either directly or indirectly. ' ' Ans. 8. — I, on several occasions, have heard students propose to have it published, and the reply generally given was, "The Provost would not like it." Whether or net he was conaulted, I cannot say. " Am •■ft* The next set of answers is from a layman, now resident in the Diocese of Huron. Ans. 1. — Attendance on the catechism lecture was com- pulsory. Ans. 2. — The Provost read from his manuscript as a continuous lecture, but must have been aware that we had it either written, or took very few notes in the room, and both questions and answers were contained in his lecture, although not distinguished as such by him, being probably aware that we had both questions and answers before us. Ans. 3. — Tho students had both questions and answers written before they entered the room, and only compared their'g with the Provost's while he read. Ans. 4. — The students were expected on the lecture day to answer the questions of the preceding lecture day in the substance, and as much as possible in the words given. Ans. 6. — I never did. Ans. 6. — Each student of tho first year either borrows, and copies a manuscript from the borrowed copy, or purchases from a student of the second or third year his manuscript. Ans. 7. — I never heard him say any thing pro or con in the matter. Ans. 8. — I never heard any proposition of the kind, though it might have been made without my knowledge. The following is an extract from a note received from a lay -gentleman, residing at some distance : " I do not think the Provost has ever given both questions and answers to any student to copy, but I heard when I was at college that he lent his questions on one occasion, and that a copy was taken of them. Of course, as soon as the students had a copy of the quest'.ons which were to be put to them, they 6 were able to form proper answers from the notes which they had taken down from the last or preceding lecture. I don't remember hearing any copy called * The Provost's Cate- chism ; ' I have heard of * The Provost's Questions,' meaning those questions which the Provost asks. I have heard that the Provost has been asked to publish a catechism, in order "^ that the students might be saved the trouble of writing out copies for themselves." The following answers are from a graduate of Trinity College, residing in the Diocese of Toronto : Ans. 1. — ^Yes ; it was placed precisely on the same footing with other subjects. Students absenting themselves from catechism, or any other lecture given by the Provost, were obliged to account satisfactorily to the Provost on the suc- ceeding day, for their absence therefrom. Ans. 2. — ^Yes ; the Provost's mode of procedure was : ^ follows : at his first lecture to freshmen, he read to us about thirty questions, (the number varied afterwards.) The next Friday, he questioned us on the matter of the preceding Friday, and read to us fresh questions and answers sufficient to fill up the hour. Ans. 3. — The students had copies of the questions and answers written, either by themselves, or students who had previously graduated in Trinity College, and as the Provost read his lecture they compared their manuscripts with what he read and made alterations in the references, (texts of scripture,) or any thing else in which there might have been a discrepancy. They were thus assured of perfect accuracy. Ans. 4. — Most assuredly they were ; for I recollect that on one occasion, a student of my year expressed the answer in a manner which varied, by tioo unimportant words, from that dictated by the Provost on the preceding Friday, and was corrected for it. I remember the more distinctly as every student who took pains with it, used to repeat it with literal accuracy. Ans. 5. — I understood, by report among the students, that the Provost did at me time lend his manuscript to a student, and I always considered that this was the origin of the almost stereotyped accuracy of our manuscripts. ' J Ans. 6. — Yes; generally a student, after his previous examination in the second year, at which time he passes his third and last examination in the catechism, either gives, lends, or sells his manuscript catechism to junior students. In my case I obtained the loan of a manuscript catechism, and copied it out. It is familiarly known among the students as " The Provost's Catechism." Ans. 7. — Never to my knowledge. Ans. 8. — ^No ; but I often wished, for my own convenience, ihat it had been printed and published, as the copying of it entailed a great deal of unnecessary labour upon me, and wasted much precious time, in fact, I thought it on the whole a very strange proceeding. I have stated fully my objections to this mode of teaching in my pasvoral ; I need not here repeat them. This manuscript, known as "The Provost's Catechism," with the questions copied or corrected from his own manu- script, lent for that purpose, and the answers taken down carefully from his own lips and corrected from time to time, has been handed down from class to class, and has even been bought and sold by the students. I have not given the names of those gentlemen from whom I have received the above answers to my questions, but I can obtain permission to do so if necessary, and shall lay the original documents, together with the letters which accompanied them, before any member of the Synod appointed for that purpose. There was but one gentleman to whom I applied who ex- pressed a wish " not to be implicated in the matter." I have therefore not made any use of his communication. I now proceed to lay before you the teaching which I characterise as "dangerous in the extreme." I have heard, when examining graduates of Trinity College, statements which they have reported as made to them, either in the course of lectures, or in conversation with the Divinity Pro- fessor. Some of these I took down at the time I heard 8 them, 3ttch as the following, that ^' the Ohurch of England lost at the Reformation some things which were in them- selves good and tended to edification :" that "justification was an impertinent subject to introduce before a congrega- tion, as there was not one man in ten thousand who was not already justified." These and like statements I have heard from gentlemen who have been students in the University. I do not here dwell upon chem ; 1 come to the consideration of documents which I shall quote, and I think when these documents are well weighed, and compared with the articles and formularies of our Church, they will abundantly estab- lish the concb'sion to which I have come, that the teaching in Trinity College is dangerous. I have now in ray possession five copies of the catechism, which has been for years in the hands of the students of Trinity College, and which graduates of the University declare contains the questions of the Provost, corrected from his own manuscript, with the answers taken down carefully from his own lips. I have collected these five copies, and their agreement is such as must convince any one that either they all had their origin from one copy, or that they were reported * wonderful fidelity from the lips of the lecturer. The following are specimens of the dangerous teaching contained in this catechism : — On the article, "Born of the Virgin Mary,'' we find the following questions and ansv/ers : — • QuES. — What is the Hebrew form of the name Mary ? AnS. — Miriam. QuES. — What does that signify ? Ans. — Exaltation. QuES. — What signification, then, had it as borne by the mother of our Lord ? Ans. — The exalte*-", position resulting from her having sriven birth to the Redeemer of the world. QuES. — Who is the first recorded possessor of this name ? Ans. — Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron. QuE8. — Show that she may be regarded as holding a 9 potition under the old dispemation, typical of that which Mary held under the netv ? Ans. — Miriam was an instrument in bringing the Israel- ites in*:> the promised land, and Mary was an imtrument in bringing mankind into the Kingdom of Qlory {or Heaven.) QuES. — What was the belief of tTbe early Fathers respect- ing the virginity of Mary ? Ans. — ^That she continued a virgin ever after. QuES. — On what grounds did it rest ? Ans. — Some suppose that the mother of such a son could not be mother of another. Such teaching as this I regard us a dangerous tampering with a false doctrine of the Church of Pome, directly lead- ing to idolatry. It will, I doubt not, be said by some that Pearson, in his " Exposition of the Creed," teaches the same thing. Even were this the case, still I would consider the teaching as dangerous \a the present time, when there is, especially in the minds of the young, such a hankering after the errors and superstitions of librae ; but Pearson docs not teach that the Virgin Mary had a divinely appointed type under the law ; neither does he teach that she was an in- strument in bringing mankind into the Kingdom of Heaven. He says : " As she, Miriam, was exalted to be o.je of those who brought the people of God out of the Egyptian bond- age, so was this Mary exalted to be the mother of that Saviour, who, through the red sea of his blood, hath wrought a plen- teous redemption for us, of which that was a type." In the questions and answers of the catechism, the undue exaltation of Mary is puahed far beyond what Pearson says upon the subject, ana wo see the germ of that full-blown superstition wh :h, in its most r^ rolting form, meets us in the late letter' of the Pope to the Canadian Bishops. I fear such teaching for our young men. If they are taught to believe that Mary is typified in the law, they may soon conclude, with Bona- venture, that she is to be found in the Psalms, and thus be led to look upon the idolatrous honour done to her in the Church of Home as natural and right. 2 10 On the article, " The Communion of Saints," I find the following questions and answers : — QuES. — With whom have the saints communion ? Prove from Holy Scripture. Ans. — With God the Father, &c., and with God the Son^ &c., and with God the Holy Ghost, &c., and with the holy angels, &c., with all the saints of the Church Militant,' &c., and with all the saints departed, &c. QuES. — Wherein does communion with saints departed consist ? Ans. — In union of affection, involving on our part rever- ential commemoration and imitation, and on their part interest on our behalf ^ and probable intercession with Q-od for us. I will add here a letter lately received from a clergyman who some years since graduated in Trinity College. " I will now endeavour to state, as well as I can remember, things which struck me as particularly strange in the Provost's doctrinal teaching. I cannot remember the exact words. I can only give the impression thev left on my mind at the time. In lecturing on ' The Communion of Saints,' he certainly gave us to understand, while discoursing on the interest the saints took in our spiritual welfare, that he thought that they pleaded with God for us. He did on one occasion make use of these words or words very like them, * This is one of the losses which we sustained,' or ' Things which we lost at the Reformation,' and I have a very strong impression upon my mind that it was when speaking of prayers for the dead. Ho always spoke of baptismal regeneration as if all divines received the doctrine in its strongest sense, without ever hinting that there was a far more evangelical view of it taken by many eminent divines in our Church. When young men are thus taught, in the creed we profess to be- lieve, that the saints departed take an interest in our spirit- ual welfare, and probably intercede with God for us, the transition is easy to * Holy St. Domlniok pray for us.' Can we regard that man as a sound-hearted member of the (Jhwch of Englandy as she now is, who has learned that the 11 same Church, at the Eeformation, lost certain valuahle practices, which, of course, it would he our duty, if possible, to have restored ?" On the article, " Remission of Sins," in the Creed, I find the following questions and answers : — QuES. — How is remission of sins granted under the Gospel ? Ans. — In baptism past sin is forgiven, whether original or actual, in the case either of infants, or adults duly pre- pared by faith and repentance. QuES. — How is it granted after baptism ? Ans. — On repentance. QuES. — In what mode is redemption declared and sealed to the penitent ? Ans. — It is declared in the authoritative absolution^ and sealed in the reception of the Holy Communion. QuES. — Prove from Holy Scripture. Ans. — " If we say that we have no sin, wc deceive our- selves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." — 1 John i., 8, 9. " To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also, for if I forgive any thing, to whom I forgive it, for your sakes forgive I it, in the person of Christ." — 2 Cor. ii., 10. The evident intention in quoting this passage from the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, is to justify the statement that the remission of sins is declared '' in the authoritative absolution'' mentioned in the answer to the preceding question. Contrast the mode of granting remission of sins set forth in this catechism with the mode enunciated so clearly in the eleventh article of our Church: "We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works and desorvings ; wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justi- fication." This mode of teaching the remission of sin, in baptism, sealed by the reception of the Lord's Supper, and declared by the authoritative absolution of the Church, is 12 not that which God has revealed in His Word, and which our Church teaches in her formularies, her articles, and her homilies. If baptism, the supper of the Lord, and the authoritative absolution, take away sin and seal the pardon of the transgressor, then the Church of Borne is right, and our forefathers were unjustifiable schismatics in separating from her communion. Concerning the sacraments, I find in the catechism the following questions and answers : — QuES. — Of what sacraments does the catechism treat ? Ans. — Of two only as generally necessary to salvation, baptism and the Lord's Supper. QuES. — What is implied by these restrictions of the term ? Ans. — That the term sacrament may be more widely applied to mean any holy rite. Qdes. — Where, then, lies the error o'" the Roman Church in making seven sacraments ? Ans. — In drawing no due distinction between tJie two great sacraments and other holy rites. QuES. — The sacraments are said to be generally necessary to salvation ; what is meant by generally ? Ans. — G-enerally here means universally !! generallyj I.e., to all men. The sacraments are necessary, not to God, as instruments whereby he may save us, but to us, as God's appointed means of salvation, the channels in which his grace fiows to us. {Laud.) QuES. — Give an instance of a sacrament or a holy rite ordained by Christ himself, which is not generally necessary to salvation ? Ans. — Orders* QuES. — What rites does Rome class with the two great sacraments? Ans. — Confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. QuBS. — What is to be observed concerning confirmation? Ans.— Confirmation was in early times 'part of the sacrament of baptism ; it became separated from it in three ways, &c. QcBS. — What concerning orders ? ^ 18 . Ans. — This rite was appointed by Christ, and was accom- panied hy an outward sign^ but the grace bestowed is not personal, but official, and there is no promise of the remis- sion of sins. QuBS. — What respecting penance ? ' Ans. — In early times those who were subject to ecclesi- astical penalties were required to confess their sins, and after having been separated from the Church, were admitted by the laying on of hands. (This rite is not attended by the remission of sins.) QuES. — What respecting matrimony ? Ans. — In this rite, there are outward signs, but no spirit- ual grace, and no promise of the remission of sins. Is ic safe to teach young men thus to regard the so-called sacraments which the Church of Rome has added to the onli/ two appointed by Christ ? and not as our Church plain- ly teaches concerning them in the 25th Article : " Those five commonly called sacraments are not to be counted sacra- ments of the (Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of ihe apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures, but t/et have not like nature of sacraments^ with baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." Our Church do.es not speak of two great sacraments, leaving us to infer that there are lesser sacraments, and that the Church of Rome, in adding to the sacraments ap- pointed by Christ, has only erred in not making a " due distinction " between the two great sacraments and other holy rites or sacraments. Neither does our Church trifle with her members by using the word generally when she intended to express "unive. sally." When wo add to this that these young men who are thus taught in the first year of their university course, to toy with the sacra- ments of the Church of Rome, are further instructed that the recipient of the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper partakes of the "glorified humanity " of the Son of Grod, I think it will be acknowledged that the teach- ing is dangerous in a very high degree. Moreover, in this 14 catechism, our Lord's words, recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, are repeatedly quoted, as spoken con- cerning the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as in the fol- lowing answers : — QuES. — Prove from Holy Scripture that the Lord's Supper is generally necessary ? Ans. — " Then Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." — John vi., 63. QuES. — What words of our Lord show this ? Ans. — Our Lord speaks of the spiritual benefits which should certainly flow from eating his flesh and blood, of which benefits the wicked cannot be thought to partake. — " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him." — John vi., 54, &6. QuES. — Prove from Holy Scripture that the Holy Eucha- rist sustains the spiritual life impartpd by Baptism ? Ans. — " Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, execept ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you." — John vi., 63. In these questions and answers, taken from different parts of the catechism, the student is unhesitatingly taught to interpret the words of our Lord, in the sixth of John, as spoken concerning the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Commentators of the Church of England since the Reforma- tion, and some Roman Catholic divines, have interpreted the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel as having no reference whatsoever to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and one of the latter has asserted that " the universal church has understood this passage ever since its promulgation, to mean spiritual eating and drinking by a living faith." One of our most eminent Reformers, when combating the doctrine of transubstantiation, thus expressed himself con- cerning this passage : '* Christ in that place of John spake not of the material and sacramental bread, nor of the sacra- mental eating, (for that was spoken two or three years before 15 I ! the sacrament was first ordained,) but he spake of spiritual bread nany times repeating, * I am the bread of life which came down from heaven,' and of spiritual eating by faith, after which sort he was at the same present time eaten of as many as believed on him, although the sacrament was not at that time made and instituted. And therefore he said, * Tour fathers did eat manna in the desert, and died ; but he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.' Therefore, this place of St. John can in no wise be understood of the sacramental bread, which neither came from heaven neither giveth life to all that eat. Nor of such bread could Christ have then presently said, * This is my flesh,' except they will say, that Christ did then consecrate so many years before - the institution of His Holy Supper." — Cranmer. I cannot, therefore, think it sound divinity or good pro- testantism to teach that in the sixth chapter ot St. John, our Lord refers to the oral reception of the elements in the sacrament, and not to the spiritual participation of his body and blood, by faith ; such teaching I must consider " dan- gerous in the extreme." I have thus laid before you, from authentic sources, some of the teaching to which I object. The impressions con- veyed to my mind by the examination of graduates of the University, I cannot of course convey to yours. The mode adopted by me to ascertain the character and eflFects of the teaching in Trinity College is that which common sense dictated, and which my position required me to adopt, namely, to examine the pupils. It would be quite impossible to write all I have learned in this way, but the result has been a deep-seated conviction that a large proportion of tares is mixed with the seed sown in the minds of the young men educated in the institution. In some, I know, these tares have not taken root, but this is to be attributed to the fact that their minds were pre-occupied by the good seed which had been previously sown by the care of their parents or pastors. Whether this has always been sufficient to prevent the growth of the tares, I cannot say. Before I conclude this letter, which is the last I shall ad- 16 dress to you on this subject, I would briefly advert to one or two passages in my late pastoral. The resolutions of the committee, which were said to have been transmitted to me, were never received, they never came into my hands. When the statute which has been the subject of discussion was read at the Council, I strongly objected to it, stating, at the same time, that if wo could always depend on having a Chancellor like the gentleman who now so worthily occupies that position, there could be no objection to leave some dis- cretionary power with him, as all knew that he would act wisely and justly, but that such discretion could not be safely intrusted to every person who might hereafter be elected Chancellor of the University. With reference to my reasons for not appearing at the meetings of the Corporation, they are stated by me in my letter to the Bishop of Toronto, and occupy a paragraph of that letter. It is very unfortunate that when the Corporation of Trinity College undertook to state from my letter the grounds on which I declined to take my place at the Council, they should have selected part of a sentence in the middle of the paragraph, and over-looked those portions of the same paragraph which immediately precede and follow that part of a sentence which they selected. The letter is now before the public, and any one who will take the trouble to analyze the paragraph referred to will find that there are three grounds for my refusal to attend the Corporation of Trinity College. The first and chief reason which I quote in my pastoral is contained in the words, " as 1 cannot in my soul approve of the theological teaching of Trinity OoUege, I believe that my appearing to sanction this teaching would be a positive evil." The second is in the following words : — " Were I to go to the Council, as you say would be the wiser and more honorable course, and enter my protest against the teaching which I condemn, no good result could follow, (as I could not expect to effect a change in the teaching of the University)." The words which I have included between 17 brackets are the only portion of the paragraph noticed by the Corporation, and they state this as the ground of my refusal to attend the meetings of the Council, whereas these words constitute an inferior member of the sentence, and do not express my reason for not attending the meetings of the Council. The third reason assigned in the paragraph is : " And the melancholy picture of a house divided against itself would be presented ; to avoid this, I have heretofore kept aloof from the University^ and I am still satisiiei! in my own mind, that it is better for me thus to act tha ^o introduce discussion into the Council, and thus to render patent the differences which unhappily exist among us.'' With these three reasons thus plainly before them, the Corporation of Trinity College selects an inferior member of a sentence in the middle of the paragraph, and asserts that in that part of a sentence, without reference to the context, is contained the ground stated by me for refusing to comply with the request of the Bishop of Toronto to take my place at Council. This letter was written as a " private communication " to the Bishop of Toronto, but it is evident it was laid before the Corporation, as it is referred to in their document of the 29th June. In that letter, while I declined to take my place at the Council (for the three reasons assigned,) which was the thing the Bishop urged me to do, I stated in the most em- phatic way, ^^ I eannot in my soul approve of the theological teaching of Trinity College" and I hoped and expected that his Lordship would have asked me to particularise in what this teaching consisted ; to my regret and surprise he did not do so, and therefore, I could not arrive at any other conclusion than that which I have stated in my pastoral. But discussions on these minor points are unimportant, and are of no real interest to the public. The teaching of Trinity College is that which concerns the community. From what I have written above, all may judge of this for them- selves. The documentary evidence which I have adduced is but a small part of the information which I have obtained in my examination of the graduates of the University. Some, 3 18 perhaps, may not see the danger I apprehend, and may think it quite safe to send their sons to the institution ; but I feel assured that many will concur in opinion with me, that it is not wise or' safe to subject young and inexperienced minds to such teaching, even though great names be quoted in favour ^ of it. In conclusion, I would say, that as no one can now mis- understand my attendance at the Council of Trinity College, and as " the melancholy picture '' which I wished to avoid has been made patent to all, I shall take into consideration the expediency of appointing five gentlemen as members of the Corporation, and of endeavouring, in my place there, to effect those changes in the institution which will render it such, that I may be able conscientiously to recommend it to others, and avail myself of it for the benefit of my Diocese. I remain my reverend brethren and brethren. Your faithfij friend and brother in the faith, BENJ. HURON. August 29th, 1860. EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE CORPORATION OF i t TRINITY COLLEGE. At a meetini; of the Corporation of Trinity College, held on Thorsc^ay, September 27tb- 1860: (Present : The Hon. and Rioht Rbv. the Lord Bishop or Toronto, The Hok. Sir John Beteblet Robinson, Bart., Chanoei.IiOr of the University, , The Rev. the Provost of Trinity College, The Rev. the Vice-Provost, The Rev. Professor Hatch, Professor Bovell, M.D., The Hon. G. W. Allan, The Hon. Mr. Vice-Chancellor Spragoe, James M. Straohan, Esq., The Hon. Mr. Justice Hagartt, D.C.L., James Lukin Robinson, Es^., Samuel Bickerton Habman, B.C.L. The Hon. John Hilltard Cameron, D.C.L,, The Rev. T. B. Fuller, D.D., D.C.L., The Rev. William MoMurbat, D.D., D.C.L., The Rev. S. Qivins, The Rev. J. T. Lewis, LL.D.) The Lord Bishop of Toronto made the following communication to the meeting, " I beg leave to lay on the table a letter which I have received from the Reverend the Provost of Trinity College, in vindication of his religious teaching in the College from an attack which has been made upon it by the Bishop of Huron, and also the printed letter upon it by the Bishop of Huron to the Executive Committee of his Diocese, in which that attack is continued. I lay these papers before the Council not doubting that it will appear to them on their consideration, that the Provost in regard to those things which he admits that he has taught, has successfully defendeotes which they had taken down from the last or pieceding lecture. I don't remember hearing of any copy called ' The Provost's Cate- chism.' I have heard of the 'Provost's Questions,' meaning those questions which the Provost asks. I have heard that the Provost has been asked to publish a catechism, in order that the students might be saved the trouble of writing out copies for themselves." It may, however, be well that I should now do publicly, what I should long ago have been most ready and willing to do privately, give answers of my own to the seri:s of questions which tlio Bishop of Huron has addressed to his informants. This then I proceed to do. Q. 1. — Was the attendance on the lectures on catechism compulsory ? A. — Undoubtedly it was, and no hint has been thrown out that it was not so. Q. 2. — Did the Provost at each lecture dictate questions and answers from his on'n manuscript 'i 2S A. — Certainly not. I put questions to the students at the opening of each lecture, on the subject of the preceding lec- ture, to be answered by them vivd voce. Consequently the statement that questions were read at the first lecture is" absolutely untrue. Q, 3. — Did the students write both questions and --nswers as he dictated them ? A. — Since neither questions nor answers were dictated they could not be written by the ctudents. Q. 4. — Were the students expected on the next lecture day to read the answers as the Provost had dictated them ? A. — As the answers had neither been dictated nor written down, they could not be read. Q. 5. — Did you ever know the Provost to lend his manuscript to a student to correct his notes taken down at lecture ? /-. — I have no recollection whatever of having lent ray man- uscript, nor is the correctness of my recollection in this particular disputed by the informants of the Bishop of Huron, but I did lend a book containing my questions. It is particularly to be noticed that these questions have no answers annexed. Q. 6. — Are there any copies of the manuscript thus corrected handed down from class to class ? And is the book fami- liarly known among the students as " The Provost's Catechiem?" A. — I believe that a manuscript containing my questions, with answers framed from the notes of my lectures, was compiled, soon after the openiug of the College, without authority, by one of the students, and has been repeatedly copied ; but I had no knowledge of the existence of such a book, untU I was informed of it in July last by Dr. Bovcl), who received hia information from the Bishop of Huron. 1 have never seen such a book, and know of its existence only by report. Q. 7. — Did the Provost over express his disapproval of the use of these note-books ? A. — I did frequently express disapproval of the servile use of the noie-books of others, conceiving however that they u contained merely an analysis of my lectures. Had I known what these note-books are said to contain, my disapproval would have been expressed more strongly ; and when I lent my questions, which I have not doT.e for some years, I cautioned students not to avail themselves of them for the purpose of reducing my leyturss to a catechetical form. Q. 8. — Are you aware whether a proposition to publish the manuscript was ever made by any of the students, and what was the Provost's reason for disapproving of its pub- lication ? A. — I was never asked to publish my manuscript on the catechism. These facts I consider to be of great importance. 1st, — So far as they relate to the mode of teaching, which, had it been conducted by dictated questions and answers, I should, with the Bishop of Huron, have regarded as very objection- able, and without precedent at home. 2nd,— Because the fact, that answers to the questions vrere not dictated, materially affects the authority of the manuscripts from which the Bishop of Huron derives his information. It should be remembered that at' the time at which the Bishop issued his pastoral of the 21st of July I was in utter ignorance of the contents of these manuscripts, and consequently most anxious not to be held in any way responsible for them ; and iL must be evident to any reasonable man that I cannot justly be made answerable for tlio terms in which young men, little versed in Theology, have thought fit to give expression to my teaching. In the next paragrapli of the Bishop's letter he speaks of information derived by his Lordship from candidates for holy orders, respecting my opinions as expressed in my lectures or in private conversation. I must indignantly protest against the production of any such hearsay evidence ; and the special instances brought forward by the Bishop, respect- ing " the losses sustained at the Reformation," and '' the impertinence of preaching on the doctrine of justification," I meet with a flat denial of their truth. In the same way I meet the letter of a clergyman quoted by the Bishop, in which mention is made of prayers for the dead, a practice against which every theological student of the College must know that I have repeatedly and strongly urged every argu- ment both from Scripture and from reason. To proceed to the Bishop's specific objections. Ist, — Concerning the Virgin Mary. The Bishop says, " such teaching I regard as a dangerous tampering with a false doctrine of the Church of Rome, directly leading to idolatry." I positively deny that my real teaching is in any degree open tc this censure, and I most ^confidently appeal to the theological students generally, in proof of the assertion that I have ever strongly condemned those grievous errors of the Church of Rome which assign to the Blessed Virgin any other place in the economy of human redemption than that of a humble yet most honoured instrument in the hand of Him, who made her thus instrumental by causing her to be the mother of the Lord. In my lectures on the articles, I have argued agaiust the dogma of the Immaculate Concep- tion, from our Lord's words, " Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it," by showing that, if that dogma were true, then Mary would enjoy an exclusive spiritual privilege^ to tvhich the hearing and keeping of the word of G-od could advance no other human being. I have often said that the one error of Mariolatry constituted, in my opinion, an impassable gulph between the Church of Rome and our own. The answer which the Bishop of Huron cites on this sub- ject is : " Miriam was an instrument in bringing the Israelites into the promised land, and Mary was an instrument in bringing manlcind into the kingdom of Glory (or Hoaven.)" For this answer, as he'mf; incorrect, I am in no way respon- sible ; and I object to it altogether, both in respect of Miriam and in respect of Mary. I consider the latter clause to be open to very dangerous construction, as it might bo under- stood to imply some past or permanent ministry of the Blessed Virgin tending immodiatoly to the salvation of man- kind. In explanation of my own view, I would say that 1 claim Bishop Pearson as a recognised authority in our Church, and his work on the creed as an unexceptionable text-book. Pearson then says : — " As she (Miriam) was exalted to be one of them who brought the people of God out of the Egyptian bondage, so was this Mary exalted to become the mother of that Saviour, who, through the Red Sea of His blood, hath wrought a plenteous redemption for us, of which that was but a type." In my manuscript I find the following words : " The sister of Moses and Aaron, coupled with them by the prophets as a joint leader of Israel from Egypt, (Micah vi. 4,) and thus answering, in some typical respect, to the place which Mary bore instrumentally in the means of human redemption." These words are taken from Dr. Mill's analysis of Pear- son, and are taken advisedly, as expressing distinctly and guardedly the Bishop's meaning. For these words only, then, can I consent to be responsible, nor can I suppose that any candid person would object to them as not correctly representing the meahing of the original author. I trace the typical resemblance of which Pearson speaks only in the earlier recorded events of Miriam's life, when watching the infant deliverer "to see what would become of the child," she occupies in respect of him a position analogous to that of Mary as the guardian of our Lord's infancy ; and again, when leading the song of triumph at the Red Sea, she celebrated the beginning of God's temporal deliverance, as Mary celebrated in her Eucharistic Hymn, the beginning of His great redemption. The Bishop next quotes from the manuscript he has used, yet without any special remark, two questions and answers relating to the belief of the early Church respecting the per- petual virginity of the mother of our Lord. In my manu- script I find only a reference to a passage in Bishop Pearson, which I here transcribe: " We believe the mother of our Lord to have been not only before and after His nativity, but also for ever, the most immaculate and bleesed Virgin." And again, . *' The peculiar eminency and unparalleled privilege of that mother, the apeoial hoaour and reverence due unto that Son, and ever paid by her< 27 the regard of that Holy Ghost who came upon her, and the power of the Highest which overshadowed her, the singular goodness and piety of Joseph to whom she was espoused, hare persuaded the Church of God in all ages to believe that she still continued in the same virginity, and therefore is to be acknowledged as the ever Virgin Mary." — Pearson on the Creed* vol. I., p. 272, Oif. 1820. To this testimony of Bishop Pearson may be added those of Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Latimer, Bishop Hooper, Bishop Jewel, Dr. Hammond, Bishop Bull, Bishop Beveridge, Bishop Wilson and Bishop Z. Pearce, which I shall give in full in ray longer letter ; some of these writers maintain the perpetual virginity as a reasonable and pious opinion, while others contend that it is a necessary doctrine proved by Holy Scripture. I should be disposed to take the ground occupied by the former, and I trust that their authority, together with that of those who adopt the stricter view of the matter, will protect me from the charge of dangerous heresy or disgusting folly. Respecting the Bishop's objection, under the head of " the intercession of saints," I would again confidently appeal to the students of the College as to the character of my teach- ing, and I must indignantly deny the justice of the Bishop of Huron's insinuation aS to its tendency. No man can be more heartily convinced than I am of the presumptuous im- piety of the practice of ihe " invocation of saints." To the question and answer quoted by the Bishop I have no objection to urge, as my manuscript contains the words " and probable intercession with God for us," though not in the form of question or answer. I will only notice that the introduction of the word " probable" shows that prayer on the part of the departed for the Church on earth is not inculcated as a necessary doctrine, proved by Holy Scripture, but is spoken of only as a pious opinion, not contrary to it. In reply to the Bishop's objection I have to state that the great writers of our Church, in controversy with Rome, have always carefully distinguished between the prayers of saints departed for us and our 'praying to them. The latter they justly denounce as a presumptuous and superstitious prao tice, and as an invasion of the prerogative of Almighty God 28 I'ii f the former they allow to be a probable and reasonable belief. They distinguish also between general oxidi particular inter- cession, showing that the former implies no present knowledge of our condition on the part of saints departed, but merely a recollection of earthly friends. When I speak of the saints departed, I mean "the spirits of just men made perfect;'' , not assuming that it is possible that we should have any certain knowledge of the individuals who constitute their body, which knowledge must be assumed by those who ap- prove or practice the "invocation of saints." I can by no means admit that the transition is easy, from the belief that saints departed oflFer general intercession for the Church on earth, to the use of the invocation " Holy St. Dominick pray for us;" and I consider the admission that such a transition is easy most perilous to the true faith. I subjoin an extract from ^ letter addressed by Bishop Bidley to the martyr Bradford, shortly after his condemnation : « Brother Bradford, so lopg as I shall understand thou art in thy journey by God's grace I shall call upon our heavenly Father for Christ's sake to set thee safely home, and then, good brother, speak you, and pray for the remnant which are to suffer for Christ's sake, according to that thou then shalt know more clearly." — See vol. iii. p. 370 of Fox's Acta and Monuments, folio, London, 1684. If Bishop Bidley is to be accounted a dangerous heretic for the adoption of this language, I am well content to share his disgrace. Respecting the remission of sins I appeal to Bishop Pear- son, his words are : '• And therefore the Church of God, in which remission of sin is preached, doth not only promise it at first by the laver of regeneration, but afterwards also upon the virtue of repentance ; and to deny the Church this power of absolution is the heresy of Novatian." In these words the writer claims for the Church the power of absolving the penitent, not the power of absolving any transgressor whatever, as the Bishop of Huron implies. Dr. Mill, in his analysis, adds the means which the Church employs in the exercise of this power, and speaks of remission as declared in the authoritative absolutions (not absolution) pronounced by the ministers of the Church, and sealed in 29 the reception of the Holy Communion. The vrhole weight of the Bishop of Huron's objection lies in his suppression of the word "penitent." True repentance, which cannot exist apart from true faith in Christ, is presupposed, as the indispensable qualification of the recipient of the pardon, which God is then asserted to bestow in the Church, through the authoritative, yet simply ministerialj absolution of the minister, which takes effect, not at his (the minister's) pleas- ure, but according to the genuineness of the repentance of those to whom it is administered. In special cases, of rare occurrence, the minister is indeed called upon to pronounce an absolution, which is judicial as well as ministerial; yet here again, the absolution i^ contingent, and cannot take effect except upon those who truly repent and believe. Respecting the sacraments, as his Lordship has recognised the Homilies as one of the authoritative formularies of our Church, I would submit that every detail of my teaching to which his Lordship objects, is to be found in the Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments. I shall enter into this mat- ter at much greater length in a letter which I am about to publish, and will here merely observe that in speaking of pe- nance, matrimony, &c., it was my purpose to indicate some one or more points in which each of the five so-called sacra- ments of the Church of Rome falls short of the definition of a sacrament given in the catechism of the Church of Eng- land. It being an undoubted historical fact that the word " sacrament" was applied in early times, not to seven rites or holy things, but to things innumerable of such nature, it is most important not to rest the pre-eminence of the two great sacraments of Christ, upon a vain attempt to restrict to them a term of human invention not found in Holy Scripture, but on their distinctive dignity as being ordained by Christ Himself, and as being the only outward signs in the use of which our spiritual lifq is communicated and sustained. In order, however, to maintain as far as possible a verbal distinction between the two great sacraments and other holy rites, a distinction which has not been made by the appro- priation to those sacraments of a distinctive name, I should 30 m m in practice invariably use the word " sacrament " of baptism and the Lord's Supper onl^y and I should reprove any young man under my care for applying it to any other rite. So far am I from teaching the students of Trinity College to "toy" with the so-called sacraments of the Church of Rome. The Bishop also complains that the words " generally ne- cessary to salvation," are thus explained in the manuscript which he has used. " Generally here means universally, generally, i. e. to all men." In my manuscript I find these words : " Oenerally necessary, not to God, as instruments whereby He is to save ; but to us, as God's appointed means cf salvation. Necessary generally, that is, to all men." 1 do not use the word "universally," and if I err in my interpretation of the word " generally," I err with Dr Ham- mond, Bishop Nicholson, Bishop Beveridge, Bishop Wilson and Dr. Nicholls, as J. shall show by quotations in my longer letter. I have been accustomed also to show how this general necessity is limited, by reference to the language used res- pecting the Sacrament of Baptism in the service for the bap- tism of adults, " whereby ye may perceive the great necessi- ty of this sacrament, where it may he had." If this expla- nation of the meaning of the word "generally" be not satis- factory, I should be glad to learn what interpretation of the term will meet at once the theory of the objector, and the requirements of common sense. There are but two other points in the Bishop of Huron's letter now remaining to be considered. On these I must touch very briefly, Reserving the more full reply to them for my longer letter. They are these, the Bishop's objection to Mr. Procter's statement that every faithful recipient (not the re- cipient^ as the Bishop states) of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper partakes of the glorified humanity of the Son of God, and his Lordship's objection to my reference to St. John vi. 53, to prove the necessity of the Lord's Supper. In reply to the former objection I am prepared to shew that Mr. Procter's teaching is fully confirmed by great divines of di our Church, and among the rest by Archbishop tJssher whom I now proceed to quote : ' " Yet was it fit also, that this head should be of the same nature with the body which is knit unto it ; and therefore that He should so be Ood, as that He might partake of our flesh likewise. " For we are members of His body,' saith the same Apostle, " of His flesh, and of His bones." And, " exqept ye eat the flesh of the Son of man," eaith our Saviour Himself, " and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." " He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him." Declaring thereby, first, that by His mystical and supernatural union, we are as truly conjoined with Him, as the meat and drink we take is with us, when by the ordinary work of nature, it is converted into our own substance ; secondly, that this conjunc- tion is immediately made with his human nature." — TJssher's Works, vol. IV., p. 608,— (see also page 617.) Respecting the Bishop's objection to my quoting the sixth chapter of St. John, I will only state that while a difference of opinion exists among divines as to interpreting the lan- guage of the sixth of St. John directly of the Lord's Supper, or of spiritual feeding in general, all who hold the former opinion, and most of those who hold the latter, would alike agree in urging from this chapter the necessity of the Lord's Supper, as the great mean of Divine appointment, whereby the act of spiritual feeding is performed, and the benefit thence resulting received. The passage which the Bishop -quotes from Archbishop Cranmer, is by no means hostile to my application of the text in question. Writing against Gardiner, and against the error of Transubstantiation, he argues that our Lord did not speak in this chapter of sacramental eating, but of spiritual eating, two acts which he conceived his antagonist to regard as almost identical, but which he regarded as distinct. It does by no means follow, however, that Cranmer did not look upon sacramental feeding as being, after the institution of the Lord's Supper, a necessary condition of spiritual feeding. A quotation, which I shall give in my longer letter, will go far to prove that he did so. Both objections appear to be raised for the purpose of throwing upon my teaching a vague suspicion of a leaning to the error of transubstantiation. This suspicion may, I believe, be completely met by the following extract from my manuscript on the catechism. d^ " The body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and reoeived by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." 'Verily and indeed,' no less truly because not eorporally. ' By the faithful,' the wicked cannot receive. 1 Cor. z. 21. St. Augustine's saying "the wicked eat 'panem Domini,' but not 'panem Dominum.'" Oar Lord speaks also of spiritual benefits which should certainly follow from eating His flesh and drinking His blood, of which benefits the wicked cannot be thought to partake. St. John yi 54, 56." V If any man supposes that a person who thus teaches, can countenance in any degree the doctrine of transubstantiation, I confess myself incapable of arguing with him. In conclusion, I wish to observe that the present contro- versy is very likely to convey to the public in general the impression that, if false doctrine has not been taught in the College, yet at laast undue prominence and exaggerated nn- portance have been given to matters of very secondary mo- ment. Your Lordsh?p is well aware that it is not my teach- ing, but the Bishop of Huron's strictures on it, which have given this prominence and importance to the matters in question. I do not sAy this by way of complaint, but simply in self-defence, and for the purpose of abating a not un- reasonable prejudice. The objections are, for the most part, based on a few short and scattered clauses, not one of which I am prepared to retract, but which I should be very sorry to have made the principal or even prominent topics of my teaching. I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's obliged and faithful servant, Trinity College, Sept. 27th, 1860. GEORGE WHITAKER. m LETTER n. My Lord, In my former letter I have replied to the objections urged by the Lord Bishop of Huron against the instruction which I give to the students of Trinity College on the catechism of the Church of England, in respect both of the form and of tl: substance of that instruction ; it now remains that I should produce, under the latter head, authorities which it would have been inconvenient to quote in a letter intended for general perusal, and also deal more fully with some points which, for the sake of conciseness, I treated in that letter somewhat briefly. As I wish to arrange my authorities methodically under distinct heads, and to accompany them only with such observations as are strictly pertinent to the subject in hand, I will, before I enter on my task, notice one or two points in the Bishop's letter to the executive committee of his Synod, which cannot properly be referred to any of these heads. Both the Bishop, and a correspondent whom he quotes, accuse me of having spoken of "losses which we sustained at the Reformation," or of having said that " the Church of England lost at the Reformation some things which were in themselves good, or tended to edification." So far as the Bishop's correspondent is concerned, I would say that though, undoubtedly, the name of any person, who makes himself responsible for the statements contained in that letter, should have been given, I am glad tha*; I do not know the name of one, who having attended my lectures, ventures to say that I '' spoke of things which we lost at the Reformation," and " that he has a very strong impression upon his mind that it was when speaking of prayers for the dead." Any one who has attended my lectures must know well that I have taken every opportunity of exposing the danger of prayer for the dead, and the fallacy of the argu- 6 34 I ! mentfl used in support of the practice. He must know also that I have never indulged in maudlin regrets respecting *'the losses we sustained at the Reformation/' and that there can he no possible colour for the charge, except it be that, in reading of admirable early usages, which our reformers did not venture to restore, such as that mentioned by Justin Martyr, the conveyance of the consecrated elements to all sick members of the church after every public celebration of the Eucharist, I have said that we might well regret that we possessed not this usage in our church, but that our regret should be controlled by the remembrance that a necessary consequence of the grievous abuses which preceded the Reformation was to abridge our liberty and to deprive us of good things which might have been safely enjoyed in happier times. So far as the testimony of the Bishop himself is con- cerned, I must be allowed to remark, that I do not know what may be the nati^re of the Bishop of Huron's examina- tion for Holy Orders, but that I am greatly astonished to find that that examination elicits from candidates "statements which they have reported as made to them, either in the course of lectures, or in conversation with the Divinity Professor.'' I cannot think that such a course of examining can be honourable to either of the parties concerned, especially at such a season ; and the result is what might be expected, nothing more or less than vague and mischievous gossip. I have already spoken of the "good things lost at the Reform- ation," and I here add that I have never given utterance to any words which could possibly lead any one to t appose that I thought that "justification was an impertiueut subject to introduce before a congregation," nor did I ever use such an expression as this, " that there was not one man in ten thousand, who was not already justified." They who know me know well that this is not my mode of treating sacred subjects. Besides my general, and as I conceive most just, objec- tion to the mode in which the Bishop has obtained and registered his information, (for I call particular attention to 95 the Bishop's statement that '^ when examining graduates of Trinity College " for Holy Orders, he "took down, at the time he heard them, some of these" statements,) I have also to complain that he has not given fairly the result of his enquiries. We hear probably only what "he took down at the time," as being specially fitted to his purpose. Is the Bishop of Huron prepared to deny that, when thus question- ing candidates, he has received statements directly contra- dictory to those which he has published ? Can he question the truth of the following extract from a letter, published in the Leader of the 6th of October, and subscribed by twelve graduates or students of Trinity College ; " "We think he (the Bishop) might have attached equal weight to the strong declaration made by one of his own clergy, an alumniba of the College, who, as his Lordship must allow, assured him that in his experience at least no Romanizing doctrines were taught ?" I now proceed to the principal subject of my letter, and adduce the testimonies, which I have collected from the great writers of the English Church, respecting the several points to which the Bishop of Huron objects. I. — The Instrumentality of the Virgin Mary in the MEANS OF HUMAN SALVATION, AND THE TYPICAL RELATION OF MiRIAM TO HER. I will, however, first observe that the Bishop says, "Pearson does not teach that the Virgin Mary had a divinely appointed type under the law" nor do I say so : I say that she "answers, in some typical respect, to the place Mary bore." It is one thing to point out a typical resem- blance, and another to aflSrm that two things stand, by divine appointment, in the relation of type and antitype. Is it irreverent or superstitious to trace with caution and diffidence the points of agreement, between "the shadows of good things to come " and the "very images of the things ?" If it be so what does the Bishop say of the use which our church makes of Genesis XXII., on Good Friday ? 36 The first authority which I shall here quote is that of Bishop Pearson, as I have used his work as a text book ; the rest will be given in chronological order : " For as the name of Jesus was the same vilh Joshua, so this of Mary was the same with Miriam. The arst of which name recorded was the daughter of Amram, the sister of Moaes and Aaron, a prophetess ; to whom the bringing of Israel out of Egypt is attributed as well as to her brethren. For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, ^aith the Lord, and redeemed thee out of the houie of tervania ; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron and Miriam. As she was exalted to be one c!. them who brought the people of God out of Egyptian bondage ; so was this Mary exalted to be the mother of that Sayiour, who through the Red Sea of His blood, hath wrought a plenteous redemption for us, of which that was but a type : and even with the confession of the lowliness of an handmaid, she seems to bear that exal- tation in her name." Bp. Pearson (1612-1686) Exposition of the Creed, vol. I., p. 286. Oxford, 1820. " Oerminet terra salvatorem, ' Let this earth bring forth a saviour ' be the terra promissionis, the blessed Virgin who was in this the land of promise. 8o was this very place applied bj^ Irenasus in. his time, who touched the Apostles' times ; so by Lactantius ; so by St. Hierom and St. Augustine. Those four meet in this sense, as do the four in the text. Quid est Veritas de terra ortaf est Christus difeemind natus. Quid est Veritas f Filius Dei. Quid terra f Caro nostra. ' What the truth ? Christ. What the earth ? Our flesh.' " Bp. Andrewes, (1565-1626), Sermons, vol. I., p. 185-6. Oxford, 1841. " Quando enim Evse, juxta Ireneeum, advocata erat Maria ? ciim in vivis erat Maria? An cum mortuaf Sine dubio ciim in vivis. De vivente Mari& loquitur Irenaeus, non de defunct^. Gomparationem instituit inter Virginem Evam, viventem, et Virginem Mariam viventem : et bouefioia mnjora docet per Virginem Mariam humano generi comparata, nuam per Virginem Evam fuerant olim deperdita. Eva per angelum teuebrarum seJucta ; Maria per angelum lucis instructa. Eva diabolo ausoultans prcevarieata est etfuit inobediens ; Maria sanoto angelo fldem hnbens, Deo obtemperavit et, fuit obediens. Eva inobediens, et sibi et universo humane generi causa facta est mortis, causa nempe pariendo mortem per quod (quara?) perimus; Maria obediens, et sibi et universo humano generi, causa facta est salutii, cauia nempe ;>art«n(/o vitam per quam servamur." "For when, according to Ireneeus, was Mary the advocate of Eve? Vfhtn Mmj yraa living f or when B\\e yma dead f Doubtless when she was llfing. IrenoBus speaks of Mary living, not of Mary when departed this life. He institutes a comparison between the virgin Eve when living, and the Tirgia Mary when living, and instructs us that greater benefits were pro. oured through the virgin Mary for the human race, than had been lost of 3T old through the virgin Eve. Bve wot led aitray by an angel of darknat, Mary initructed by an angel of light. Eve, giving ear to the devil, tranigretted and was disobedient; Mary, giving credence to the holy angel, submitted her- self to God and was obedient. Eve, disobeying, became Ihe cause of death, both to herself and to the whole human race, the cause, that is to say, by bringing forth death whereby we perish ; Mary, obeying, became the cause of salvation, both to herself and to the whole human race, the cause, that is to say, by bringing forth life whereby we are saved." Crakanthorp (1567-1624) Defensio Eclesice Anglieance, p. 376. Oxford, 1847. " To give you a more distinct view of God's wisdom in contriving the means of our salvation,— The first woman, by yieldingher consent to the wicked spiriti eats of the forbidden fruit, in hope she and her husband should become go^s and their offspring like young gods, knowing good and evil : the issue of this adulterous compact with the serpent was, that she conce'ved sin, and brought forth death, before she was a mother of children ; and her children with their posterity were by nature the sons of wrath, the serpent's seed, and heirs of his everlasting curse. To cure thib malady by the contrary, God in his wisdom so ordains, that another of the weaker sex, of a temper quite contrarv to her mother Eve — one as lowly as she was proud, whom the old serpent had never tempted with dreams of being a queen, much less of being a goddess on earth — one whose spirit rejoiced in the lowly estate of an handmaid, should, by yielding consent to the blessed Spirit, conceive Him that was the Son of God, the tree of life, in whom as many as believe receive the adoption of sons, and are co-heirs with Him of everlasting bliss. No marvel if the issues of their consents should be so contrary, whenas the principal agents with whom they contracted were such opposites ; the one was the 3pirit of Truth, the Author of life, and God of Light; the other, the spirit of falsehood, the father of lies, and prince of darkness. Lastly, the first woman did thus adulterate her boul by con* tracting with Satan without advice or consent of her husband : and this is that which made her estate and thu state of her sex far more desperate than Adam's was : for, as divines observe, the wicked angels, because they sinned wittingly and willingly, without a tempter, are left without all me our apostle (1 Tim. ii, 16) to relieve her. The conclusion intended by him in that discourse is to assure woniiinklDd, that Eve's assenting to Satan (without the advice of her huMhanU) whs not more available to condemn the sex, than the blessed Virgin's bringing forth of her first-born, whom she conceived by meie reliance on God's promise, without the concurrence or furtherance of man, was to redeem it." Jackson (1670-1640) iror*«, vol. VA.,pp. 287-8, Oitford, 1844 88 " For she (the Virgin Mary) was highly zealous to reconcile her being Mother to the Messias, with those privities and holy celibate which she had designed to keep as advantages to the interests of religion, and His honour who chose her from all the daughters of Adam to be instrumental of the restitution of grace and innocence to all her father's family." Bp. Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) Works, vol. II., p. 12. London, 1822." " The song, as Grotius thinks, hath respect to the time of the children of Israel's departure out of Egypt ; by which the time of the Messias was figured and typified, not without a wonderful congruity of circumstances disposed by Divine Providence. " There was then a Miriam thai is, a Mary, a virgin and prophetess, the sister of Aaron, leading a female troop in the divine praises. And here there is another Miriam, or Mary, overshadowed with the Holy Ghost, to bo celebrated above all women, and therefore celebrating the praises of God. There was then, in the second place, an Elizabeth, the wife of Aaron, and here there is another Elizabeth, married to a priest of the line of Aaron." Bishop Bull (163-1-1710) Enfflish Theological Works, pages 62-3. Oxford, 1844. « "The blessed Virgin Mary was the only woman that took off the stain and dishonour of I't "ex, by being the instrument of bringing that into the world, which should repair and make amends for the loss and damage brought to mankind, by the trangression of the first woman. Eve. By a woman, as the principal cause, we were first undone ; and by a woman, as an instrument under God, a Saviour and Redeemer is bora to us. And the blessed Virgin Mary is that woman." Ibid,p.6Q. The question is, Do we believe the Incarnation, and the consequent truth, that when the Son of God was " made of a woman," the woman of whom He was made was instru- mental to His Incarnation ? If it be dangerous to teach this truth, the truth also which is taught must be dangerous ; and the reproach will bo directed not only against the human inculcator, but also against the Divine Author, of the verity. Bishop Pearson saw the Blessed Virgin "typified in the law," Bishop Andrewes, as well us Bonaventure, "found her in the Psalms," yet I should be slow to admit that either the one or the other was one whit nearer the worship of our Lord's mother, than the Bishop of Huron is. 39 Vague words, which have little or no meaning, often excite alarm and suspicion, and the. Bishop's language on this point is well fitted to produce this effect. He says, " If they (our young men) are taught to helievc that Mary is typified in the law, they may soon conclude, with Bonaventure, that she is to be found in the Psalms, and thus be led to look upon the idolatrous honour done to her in the Church of Rome as nat- ural and right." If the belief that the Blessed Virgin is the subject of prophecy be indeed calculated to lead young men to regard the idolatrous worship paid to her as " natu- ral" and "right," then this stumbling-block has been cast in their way, not mainly or primarily by any human teacher, who may suggest the applicability of some particular pro- phecy, but by the Divine Teacher Himself, who, when He epakein time past by the prophets of the future Incarnation ^^i' His Son, spake likewise, beyond all doubt, of the Virgin mother who was to bear Him. None but Jews and Infidels doubt that Mary is found in Isaiah, vii. 14 ; many great teachers of our Church affirm that she is found in Jeremiah xxxi. 22 ; others again find her in Ezekiel xliv. 2 ; she may, or may not, be found in the Psalms also ; but surely it is a question which in no degree affects the ivorship of the Virgin Mary. We are accustomed, with St. Peter, to believe that Judas is "found in the Psalms." The Bishop of Huron can scarcely have regarded any thing more thn»i Lho immediate effect of hints and suggestions such as thcs II. The V .uiPETUAL Viuoinity. The Bishop next quotes a passage relating to the belief of the early Fathers in the Perpetual Virginity of the mother of our Lord, and to their reasons for this belief. The Bishop does not state what special objection ho lias to the communica- tion of this instruction as to the opinion of the early church, but f! "t is evident that it excites his apprehension, I will endt (Mr to allay that apprehension by the following ex- tracts, thich prove that very many of our best writers have agreed on this point with the early Fathers. 40 ^^O' there is ome hi !'"" '''^' ^"* *h«^^ not f '' t'^''''''' Austin' "^-^« -•«-?/«?/'' ''^ ^«"«^«d that L not wrtr " ^^««-'Pt«re Apostlea unwri««n ? ^''^ ''''' authors that . T '" ^^'^ "^Pture u '>eoneofrnutT''"^»"-°f ^''ep'; ,;: 7- traditionfof :;; *"res. and such ViL" *^7/«''«'"-se onlj. dSe !! ''■^''''*^ <>f our ladj. to - J ha.e .ant:;^' d^^U^^^^^^' P^^- ^ --^^^^^^^^^^ ,C part of them are clean tt '" "°* "ecessarj to srfvl r "'*'"«' ^^^ich, '•J'the universal churcV:? '^^'^^' '^"'^ '^e ^onCri™ ?"' '^« ^-^ ^"Siniij by thi, ^',7f . ^'«'"eover, all the said autl " "''^ '"''^ »««<» ^-Penedforan.lan ; 'T^^^''^-- '^his door sin 'hP''''''*''P«''P^tuaI ^-. he Shall go Tro:/: -'"r ''' ^"* -'/for «1 lV'J V'"* ''"^ ««* «"?'' other father? haf not' ? ''"'' '' ^« ^'^"t , f""; ^^J °^ '-ael ; Written in the serin. •'"'^S'"* her pernetunl ■ °'' '^ ^''ese and *h-gtobebe,iTv?dr*''^^'^«"'«"» -"godl^, rash and w ckld "t ^'^ '''''•""* theauthoritvof O . *'''" **•** * * A rtA —1- - • << I .»uu alter she brought ] 41 Ijr is to be ■t Austin, scripture ; scripture. ripture, ia 08 of the r lady to di'y ges- fs which, the most nd used 'ppetual ind not Israel ; ;se and e been been a oalleth r lady ' could > that , both forth him, she remained a virgin. And therefore these heretics do wrong- fully violate, toss, and turmoil the scriptures of God, according to their uwn fantasies and foolish minds. "Another argument they make, taken out of the first chapter of Matthew, where the Evangelist saith, Et non cognovit illam donee peperisset filium suum primogeniium ; ' And Joseph took his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth her first -begotten son.' Hereupon they make this argument • ' Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first son ; ergo,^ they say, 'he knew her after:' which no doubt is a foolish argument. For the mind of the Evangelist, when he declared Christ to be the first son of Mary, was to prove that he was the son of a virgin, according to the prophecy that was of him, and not to declare that Mary had more children after him, as some do fantasy. For we in our English tongue have such a manner of speaking, when we say, ' I will never forgive him so long as I live :" or when we be ill-entreated in a city, we say, ' I will no more come thither so long as I live.' By which manner of speaking we do not signify that we will come thither after our death, or forgive after our death. No. And so likewise it is here ; when he saith, ' He knew her not until she had brought forth her first begotten-son.' It followeth not, ergo, that he knew her after. Like as it followeth not when I say, I will do this thing no more as long as I live, ergo, I will do it after I am dead. And here you may perceive how foolish and fondly these heretics have handled the scriptures." Bishop Latimer, (1470-1555,) Remains, page 104-106, Parker Society's Publications. See also " Sermons of Bishop Latimer,'' (Parker Society,) pp. 516-17. " Helvidius, by the words of the scripture ill taken, conceived a wrong opinion of the blessed Virgin Mary, and said she was mother of more children than one." Bishop Hooper, (1495-1554, ) Early Writings of, page 101. Parker Society's Publications, The following passage occurs in Bishop Jewel's (1522- 1571) Defence of the Apology of the Church of England against Harding : he is reasoning against the position that some necessary truths are handed down as unwritten tradi- tions : •« Touching the perpetual virginity of that blessed virgin the mother of Christ, which M. Harding saith cannot bo proved by any scriptures, Qen- nadius writeth thus : Jlelvidii pravitatem arguens Uieronymus libellum doeu- mtntis seripturarum sufficienter factu % idversus eum edidit : ' St. Hitromt, reproving the wilful lewdness of the heretic Helvidius, (denying the perpetual virginity of Christ's mother,) set forth a book against him furniebed with ill I! sufficient testimonies of f I, n only to maintain his ouarr-i . "^^^cntlJ by the scriptures • M u I- «»• iiardme- 'Thio • i "otso; but only that St r''"^/^'- ^"-^ ^t out who will Ge„„„^. affirming th.t , Hierome's book, which ho J . «ennadius saith running that our lady barB «i.;ij ^° "® ^wte against KoWjj- ^em^yfun^i,,,, .ith'test^L "1?^^^ »>-» 5 .^ stffi ' Hardang. why should there reTmlb V" "*•*"'''•' "^'^ ''"'"^^- ' O M the case: Helvidiua thu k . *'" **"y "» one man ? ti. should he prove 'a T;"'*^ '"" * P"'^ virgin °k, . ^"^*"'' *" »t- Hierome himself ,'n . . „jy J 262. ing so deadly as the error of Eutyches, which held that our Saviour Christ did not, after his resurrection and glorification, continue as truly man ai he was before." Jackson's Works, Vol. XII., paged!, Oxford, 1844. Dr. H. Hammond (1606—1660); Paraphrase of Matt. i. 26: "And she brought forth this Jesus, her first-born (and in all probability her only) Son — [the word till being of no force to the contrary, as may appear, 1 Sam. XV. 36.] without over being known by her husband, cither before or after her conception of him ; (and as 'tis piously ];)elieved, though not affirmed in Scripture, remained a virgin all her life after) : and on the eighth day," &c., &c. " He that came from his grave fast tied with a stoue and signature, and into the College of the Apostles the doors being shut, and into the glories of his Father through the solid orbs of all the firmament, came also (as the church piously believes) into the world, cio without doing violence to the ▼ii^inal and pure bod V nf k- •"tire, to be Is 1 17 1. '"''''^' *'** ^« <«d al«o leave h^ • • *h«^t it might be mmJt T' "••S^* ^P^'^ the gate ofL ""'^^"^ "Vet II. ,. ■''''"'*'"• '***• Calholio Church h,n If"! •/'!'""' """taed for J,, v " «" oe.07 b, ta.gi„,7,. * '"J"'"" «oy the >ened, hath Stackhouse, (1680 — 1752,) after stating the opinion of the perpetual virginity in Pearson's own words, expresses his own inclination to the opposite conclusion, yet adds — . " Bat this we advance, only as the easiest acceptation of some texts of scripture, which make mention of our Saviour's family, without any design - to oppose the contrary opinion, which is supported by a great body of learned men ; but ought not however to be made an Article of Divine Faith, since there is no visible foundation for it in Divine Revelation." Body of Divinity t page 632, London, 1755. Bishop Z. Pearce (1690 — 1774) on the same place: "It does not follow from the words, or from the words ^r*< born son, that Joseph did or did not know Mary afcer the birth of Jesus. That the words ^ws iv till, do not im- ply it, see proofs in the LXX. Gen. xxviii. 15, Deut. xxxiv. 6, I. Sam. xv. 35, II. Sam. vi. 22, and in I. Tim. iv. 13. And it is well known that Christ is often spoken of as the first-born or first-begotten of God by them who never intended we should believe God to have any other Son born or begotten in the same manner. See Hebrew i. 6. ; and see further in Heiasius Exercl- tationes Sacroe, 4to, pp. 4, 5." Bishop Pearce's Commentary on the Gospels, ^ To these English authorities I am enabled by the kindness of a friend to add one from a foreign protestant confession, that of the Waldenses in Bohemia : " Hsec virgo ante partum fuit, *et virgo post partum, quae se ancillam Domini nominavit." Corpus et Syntagma confessionum, p. 267 : Oeneva:, 1612. In the "Harmonia Confessionum," published at Geneva, 1581, the words of the Bohemian or Waldensian confession, stand somewhat differently : " Quodque sit vera, casta, pura, virgo, omni tempore, ante partum, in hoc, et post huno." Harm. Conf. page S2: Oenevce, IbSl. I will close the list with the testimony of Calvin, (1509- 1564.) Matth. i., 25. Non cognovit onm donee: *' Hujus loci proetextu magnas quondam turbas movit Helvidius in Ecclesia : quod inde colligeret Mariam nonnisi ad priraum usque partum virginem fuisse : postea autem ex marito sustulisse alios liberos. Perpotua Marim virgiuitas acriter et copiose ab Hieronymo defensa fuit. Nobis hoc unum suffioiat, stulte et perperam ex verbis Evangelistoe colHgi quid post Christum natum contigerit. Vocatur ^ 46 ■. .■■ ■•■ primogenitus; sed non ali.. .. *• » 'irgin only »„ ,„ ,i. ?. ' '°«S"nuoli as lie !,«„„ i„,.„ ™f"»V made a Marv w„ „!, ° . ' °'"'<'™ 67 W hnshMj ~ °™ • *"' tt«t after- "S'-geiis., a. to xrfr "• ""' "^ i"""""' "or.r. °*"'- '■'"> ^«g Daniel i., 21 with n ^ ? ^^ ^"°*"^ ^^^^e, by cornn^ B.ble hasma,gi„,, „otes, the note un™ T^-^ "'^O' » Ws These quotations will, itru,f ;•?"■* ''"•"'^ verse -"•derthe notice of m/p'™ llT'.'>"'«»''»ving fc^^, «»riy Fathers respeotiSl „ r?'"° ^-''^ained by fhe of our Wd, .ith^he g?otdrrt&™'y »^'''-»* I We not, with Archbishon P P"""*- -cognised it as a «.».:r^'^,^™7 »" Bishop Jewel, ^r. Jackson, pronounced it " ,„, A.7 ' ''*''* "<". "ith the contrary, I can regard Jthl ^«'"»^' to deny it • o„ adopt, ,n the absence of any und'ofh, ^ '°'""*' '"""•le to o'ther the one side or the ofher"' '""P'""' ""•'"'■•ity, 'Viiiiej however T A 47 atum. idem I esse [uses- Dten- ide a 'Was fter- tyof rhis the and B to >wn kme ich ion sly e IP deny that it can be alleged against it ; and I profess no sympathy whatever with any persons, who can regard with bigoted intolerance, or with sensual scorn, the belief, that the Blessed Virgin so exhausted on her wondrous Son the treasures of her maternal tenderness, as to desire to hear the name of mother from no other lips than His ; and that she recognised also in him who bore the appellation of her hug- band, only one whom heaven had commissioned to guard her virgin innocence, and to shield her from the cruel infamy which must otherwise have been the strange result of her unparalleled exaltation ; one, who was chosen to be with her the depositary of the mystery of the Incarnation, and to watch with her over the daily steps of Him, whose Holy Presence must evermore have spoken to them of " that world," which " they who are accounted worthy to attain neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God." III. The Intercession op Saints. The next article to",which exception is taken is that of " The Communion of Saints," the words marked as dangerous being those which stand in italics in the following clause, " and on their part (the part of the saints departed) interest on our behalf, and probable intercession with God for us." This teaching I derived from Bishop Pearson, and proceed to defend it by the following quotations from eminent writers of the United Church of England and Ireland : "Pergis nunc ordine tuo retrograde ab Angelis ad Sanctos defunctoa et eorum intercesaionem : et habere ie hie, ais, communem consensum. Interoes- Bionem in particulari, et meritoriam si dicas, non habes ; Si in generali, et deprecatoriam solum vis, et Fatrum habes et nostrum in hoc consensum." " You now proceed in jour retrograde course from angels to saints departed, and their intercession : and you allege that you have here common consent in your favour. If you mean intercession in particular and meritorious, you have no such consent ; if you mean only intercession in general and deprecatory, you have herein the consent both of the Fathers and of our- selves." Crakanthorp, Defmsio Eccl. Anglicance, contra Archiepiacopum Spalatenaem, p. 354, Oxford, 1847. I would invite particular attention to this distinct and Judicious statement of the question, and especially to the m difference which the author recognises between meritorious and deprecatory intercession. I am assured that many pious and honest minds dread the suggestion that departed saints pray for us, only because they conceive that this hypothesis is an invasion of the exclusive privilege of the one Mediator ; deeply repecting their scruple, I cannot think it possible to admit the justice of their reasoning. If a good man departed out of this life continues to offer for his friends, and for the church at large, the same supplication which he was wont to offer upon earth, in the name and for the sake of Christ, can it, with any shadow of reason, be maintained that the one intercession more than the other trenches on the inviolable prerogative of Him by whom alone we come unto the Father ? In the next paragraph Crakanthorp shows that he disallows 'particular intercession, only so far as it implies a knowledge on the part of the saints at rest of the present condition of those who are on earth. « Nee enimnegamus turn Higeronymum, turn Gyprianum, tumNazianzenum, turn alios in e& opinione fuisse (quam nos quoque ut piam amplectimur et probabilem) ut putarent Sanctos defunctos pro aliquibus qui ipsii noti prim trant et chart, etiam in particulari apud Deum preces f undere. Cur tales a defunctis in particulari Deo commendari diffidamus ? Quis vel parentum in filiis, vel filiorum in parentum animabus separatis memoriam, recentem adhuc, et charitatis ardore flagrantem, obliteratam sentiat cre- datve ? Quis Sanotos Deum intuentes, vel memoria, vel charitate debiliori opinetur in cognatos charosque amicos, quam erat in fratres suos miser ille et immisericors Epulo ?" "For neither do we deny that Jerome, Cyprian, Nazianzen, and others were of the opinion (which we also adopt as pious and probable) that departed saints offer even particular prayers to God for certain individuals who were previously known and beloved by them. Why should we hesitate to believe that such persons are particularly commended to God by the departed ? Who can thiuk or believe that in children is obliterated the recollection of their parents, or in the separate spirits of parents the recol- lection of their children, fresh as it still is, and glowing with the warmth of affection? Who can imagine that the saints who see the face of Qod have a fainter recollection or a feebler affection for their relatives and beloved friends than that miserable and heartless voluptuary (St. Luke xvi., 27, 28) retained for his brethren?" Ibid, pp. 354, 6. " Whether those blessed spirits pray for us, is not the question here : but whether we are to pray unto them. That God only is to be prayed unto, • \ 'I ia the doctrine that was once delivered unto the saints, for which we 80 earnestly contend : the saints praying for us doth no way cross this (for to whom should the saints pray, but to the King of saints?) their being prayed unto, is the only stumbling block that lieth in this way." Archbishop Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, page 318, London, 1686. " Secondly, praising God with, and for, one another ; a duty continued mutually betwixt us and the very glorified saints in heaven, so far as is most commodious to the condition of each, the saints in rest and joy daily praying for their younger brethren the Church, and the saints in the camp on earth praising God for those revelations of His grace and glory to their elder brethren in heaven." Hammond's Practical Catechism, page 332, Oxford, 1847. " That we imitate the saints in Heaven, that praise God, and pray in general for the militant Church on earth ; for it cannot be conceived, that they being united to the saints on earth in charity (which must needs be heightened by their glorification and the beatifical vision) will omit this especial testimony of charity." Bishop Nicholson {died 1671). Exposition of the Catechism, [under the article of the Communion of Saints) page 63, Oxford. 1842. " Neither is it to be doubted, that the saints in happiness pi ly for the Church militant, and that they have knowledge thereof; if they go not out like sparkles, and are kindled again when they resume their bodies, which I have shown our common Christianity allows not." Herbert Thomdike {died 1^12). Works, vol. IV., part 2, p. 763, Oxford, 1853. *m the converse of Moms and 52 Elias with Christ. And there is no donbt that the blessed pray for the Churob, yet it does not thenoe follow that they should be inToked." Confeaaio Saxoniea, Sylloge Con/essionum, page 311, Oxford, 1827. Or Corpus et Syntagma ConfeiBionum, page 127, Geneva, 1612. "f atemur etiam quod sancti in ceelis, suo quodam modo, pro nobis coram Deo orent, sicut et Angeli pro nobis sunt aoliciti : et omues creatursa pro salute nostr& coelesti quodam modo ingemiscunt, et nobisoum, quemad- modum Paulus loquitur, parturiunt. Sed siout ex gemitu reliquarum crea« turarum non est instituendus cultus invooandi eas, ita ex oratione sanot> orum in ccelis non est approbandus cultus invooandi sanctos : de his enim iuTooandis nullum extat in sacris Uteris vel mandatum yel exemplum." " We confess also that the saints in heaven, after a manner of their own, pray for us in the presence of God, as angels too are interested on our behalf: and all creatures groan for our salvation, in a certain heavenly fashion, and travail in pain together with us, as St. Paul speaks. But as we ought not, on the groaning of the rest of the creatures, to ground the solemn rite of invoking them, so does not the prayer of the saints in heaven justify the practice of invo&ing the saints, for concerning their invocation no precept or example is found in Holy Scripture." Confttaio Wirtembergica, Corpus et Syntagma Con/., p. 168. I close this long and weighty list of authorities with a tes- timony which I have already cited in my former letter, a testimony which presents to us no stern controversial argu- ment — no dry enunciation of theoretical belief — but a most affecting practical adoption of the opinion condemned by the Bishop of Huron, on the part of one of our great reformers, in addressing another when he was on his way to martyrdom. Extract of a letter from Bishop Ridley to Bradford. " Brother Bradford, >o long as I shall understand thou art on thy journey, by Ood's grace I shall call upon our heavenly Father for Christ's sake, to let thee safely home ; and then, good brother, speak you, and pray for the remnant which are to suffer for Christ's sake, according to that thou then ■halt know more clearly." Fox. Acts and Monuments, Vol. III., p. 210, folio, London, 1684. Yet the Bishop of Huron says that, if young men aro taught to believe that the saints probably do that for us, which Bishop Ridley besought tho martyr Bradford to do for himself and for others, when ho should have entered into his rest, the transition is easy to " Holy St. Dominick pray for 53 us." Would this transition have been easy to a man like Ridley ? Was it a step which he could possibly have taken ? Transitions may be easy to wilful or unstable minds, which are to sober men absolutely impossible ; and to this class I must undoubtedly refer a transition from that which Holy Scripture does not reprove, to that which it absolutely for- bids , from that which right reason and natural feeling alike commend to us, to that which Christian knowledge and Christian perception unite to condemn. IV. Absolution. The next point to which the Bishop objects is that of the " Remission of sins." I adduce the following authorities for the purpose of substantiating the teaching of which the Bishop complains, i. e., that sin is forgiven, first, in baptism to in- fants, or to adults duly prepared by faith and repentance ; and that, after baptism, it is granted on repentance ; which remission is declared in the authoritative absolutions of the church, and sealed in the reception of the Holy Communion. " Tae remission of sins as it ia from God only ; so it is by the death and blood-shedding of Christ alone ; but for the applying of this unt< us there are divers means established. 1. In the institution of baptism. 2, In the institution of the Holy Eucharist. 8. Besides in the Word it" if there isalike power ordained. Now you are clear, saith Christ, (no ht from their sins,) propter sermonem huno (John 16, 8). And the very name giveth as much, that i? entitled, the word of reconciliation. Further, there is tn the same effect a power in prayer, and that in the priest's prayer. Call fur the priests, saith the Apostle, and let them pray for the sick person, and if he have committed sin, it shall be forgiven him. All and every of them are acts for the remission of sins, and in all and every of these is the person of the minister required, and they cannot be despatched without him.* But the ceremonies and circumstances that here I find used prevail with me to think, that there is somewhat here imparted to them that was not before. For it oarrieth no likelihood that our Saviour bestowing on them nothing here but that which before he had, would use so much solemnity, so diverse and new circumstances, no new and diverse grace being here oommuni* oated. 1. Now for Baptism, it appeareth plainly (John iv. 2) that the Apostles baptized in a manner from the beginning ; which I make no ques- tlon they did not without a commission. 2. And for the power of adminis- tering the Holy Sacrninent, it was granted expressly to them by Hoc faolte (Luke xxii. 10), before his passion. 8. The like we may say of the power of preaching, which was given long before, oven when he sent them and oommaodcd them to preach the kingdom of God, which was done befor* 54 ' this power was promised which is here bestowed, as will evidently appear ; the one being given (Matt. 10.) the other promised (Matt. zvi. 4.) — 4. Neither can it be meant of prayer. There is no partition in prayer^ Prayers and sapplications are to be made for all men (I. Tim. ii. 2.) Bu^ here is a plain partition. There is a quorum' whose sins are remitted, and another quorum whose sins are retained. Seeing then, this new ceremony and solemn manner of proceeding in this, are able to persuade any, it was some new power that here was conferred, and not those which before had been (though there be that apply this, others to some one, others to all o^ them), I take it to be a power distinct from the former, and (not to hold you long) to be the accomplishment of the promise made, Matt. xvi. 19, of the power of the keys, which here in this case and in these words is fulfilled; and have therein for me the joint consent of the Fathers, which, being a different power in itself, is that which we call the act or benefit of absolu- tion, in which (as in the rest) there is, in due time and place of it, an use for the remission of sins." Bishop Andrewet' Sermons, Vol. V., pp. 94-5, Oxford, 1848. <' This is a certain truth, that the passion of Christ is the only ransom and propitiation for sin. He who saith ' Whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted, whose sins thou dost rbtain are retained ' (which are the very words used in the Protestant Form of Ordination) surely intends to con- firm a power to remit sins. We acknowledge that he who is ordained is enabled by his office many ways to put away sins. " 1. By Baptism, — ' I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins:' so saith the Creed. '< 2. By the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,— 'This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many, for remission of sins :' so said our Saviour. *<8. By prayer, — 'Call for the Presbyters oi' the Church; the prayer of faith shall save the sick ; and if they have co.nmitted sins, they shall be forgiven him.' '« 4. By preaching the word of reconciliation ; — ' God was in Christ recou- ciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.' "5. By special absolution; — 'Whose sins ye remit, they are omitted.* To forgive sins is no more proper to God, than to work wooders ^tl.ove the course of nature. The one is communicable as the other. The priest ab- solves ; or, to say more properly, God absolves by the priest. Therefore he saith ' I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' God remits sovereignly, imperially, primitively, abso- lutely ; the priest's power is derivative, delegate, dependent, ministerial, conuitional." Archbishop Bramhall (1596— 1063). m>rA», vol. \.,p. 218, Oxford, 1845. *' The other paper is concerning a weighty point, that is, ' the ministry of reconciliation.' But I see not how it is intended against us. For, first, we acknowledge that sins are remitted by baptism ; that thereby ' we are 1 1 1 55 made the children of God, the members of Christ, and inheritors of the Idngdom of heaven ;' that Ood is not wanting to His own ordinance^, when we do not set a bar against ourselves. [Secondly] we do acknowledge, that in penitence, pastors of the Church have a dependent ministerial power of loosing from sin ; but that [the] primitive imperial original power is Qod's. God's power is absolute, ' ad sententiandum tinipUciter' — without ift ; man's power is only conditional — 'ad sententiandum si,' — to loose a man, if he be truly contrite and aptly disposed." Arehbithop BramhaWs Workt, vol. V., page 190, Oxford, 1846. " Cast but up all this, and you will see to what it amounts. The total will set forth unto us the infinite justice and mercy of God about sin. His justice that would not pardon a sinner without satisfaction first made. His mercy and readiness yet to grant a pardon, that Ho would give His Son to purchase a remission for us. And that to pass over the security to us, He hath left us His word to publish His will about it, instituted tacrammtt to seal it, ordained us priests, and left keys in their hands to administer. That so by the words dropped from their lips, by the prayers offered by their devout and charitable hearts, by the sacraments consecrated by their hands, by the keys left in their office, the full pardon and remission of sin might be made known, obtained, sealed, and delivered over to sinners." Biihop Nicholson {died 1671). Expoiilion of the Catechism of the Church of England, page 67, Oxford, 1842. *' Next follows the absolution to be pronounced by the priest alone, standing, for though the rubric here does not appoint this posture, yet it is to be sup- posed in reason that he is to do it here, as he is to do it in other places of the service. And in the rubric after the general confession at the commu- nion, the bishop or priest is ordered to pronounce the absolution standing. Besides, reason teaches, that acts of authority are not to be done kneeling, but standing rather : and this absolution is an act of authority, by virtue of a power and commandment of God to His ministers, as it is in the preface of this absolution. And as we road St. John xx., whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted. And if our confession be serious and hearty, this abso- lution is as effectual as if God did pronounce it from heaven. So says the confession of Saxony and Bohemia ; and so says the Augustan confession ; and which is more, so says St. Chrysostom in his fifth Homily upon Isaiah ; Heaven waits and expects the priests sentence hers on earth ; and the Lord follows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds or looses here on earth, that the Lord confirms in heaven. The same says St. Gregory, Hom. 26, upon the Gospels. The Apostles, and in them all priests, were made God's vicegerents here on earth, in his name and stead to retain or remit sins. St. Augustine and Cyprian, and generally all antiquity', say the same ; so does our church in many places, particularly in the form of absolution for the ■iok: but above all, holy scripture is clear, St. John xx., 23, Whosesoever sins y« remit, they are remitted unto them. Which power of remitting sins was not to end with the Apostles, but is a part of the ministry of reconciliation ; 56 as necessary now, as it was then, and therefore to oontinue as long as the ministry of reconciliation ; that is, to the end of the world, Eph. iv., 12, 18. When therefore the priest absolves, Qod absolTOS, if we be truly penitent." Bithcp Sparrow (died 1685). Rationale on the Common Prayer^ pp. 11, 12. And again : '* After the priest hath pronoonced the absolution, the Church seasonably prays. Wherefore we beteech him to grant u« true repentance, and hit holy Spirit, ^e. For as repentance is a necessary disposition to pardon, so as that neither God will nor man can, absolye those that are impenitent ; so is it in some parts of it, a necessary consequent of pardon ; and he that is pardoned ought still to repent, as he that seeks a pardon. Repentance, say divines, ought to be continual. For whereas repentance consists of three parts, as the Church teaches us in the Commination — 1, contrition or la- menting of our sinful lives ; 2, acknowledging and confessing our sins ; 3, an endeavour to bring forth fruits worthy of penance, which the ancients call satisfaction ; two of these, contrition and satisfaction, are requisite after pardon. The remembrance of sin, though pardoned, must always be grievous to us : for to be pleased with the remembrance of it would be sin to us. And for satisfaction or amendment of life and bringing forth fruits worthy of penance, that is not only necessary after pardon, but it is the more necessary because of pardon, for diverse reasons ; aa first, because imme- diately after pardon, the devil is most busy to tempt us to sin, that we may thereby lose our pardon and he may so receive us again to his captivity, from which by pardon we are freed. And therefore in our Lord's prayer, as soon as we have begged pardon, and prayed. Forgive us our tretpauei, we are taught to pray, and lead us not into temptation, suffer us not to fall into sin again : which very method holy church here wisely intimates ; immediately after pardon pronounced, directing us to pray for that part' of repentance, which consists in amendment of life, and for the grace of Ood's Holy Spirit enabling us thereunto. Again, repentance in this part of it, vis., an endeavour of amendment of life, is the more necessary upon pardon granted ; because the grace of pardon is a new obligation to live well, and makes the sin of him that relapses after pardon the greater ; and therefore the pardoned had need to pray for that part of repentance, and the grace of Qod's Holy Spirit, that both his present service and future life may please Qod ; that is, that he may observe our Saviour's rule, given to him that was newly cured and pardoned by him, that he may go away, and sin no more, lest a worse thing happen to him. St. John, v. 14. Ibid, pp. 18, 14. " Lastly, the unfeigned exercise of religion is undoubtedly, as never more necessary, so never so comfortable as upon the bed of our sickness, especi- ally upon the apprOisch of death; wherefore the church hath taken great care that the minister shall attend, and how he shall behave himself in the visitation of the sick, for their comfort and advantage. This comfort I con- fess must be taken from you, who are of that persuasion concerning your pastor ; for if upon the apprehension of your latter end you felt your con* 57 soienoe troubled, and being observant of the method proscribed, desire to make a special confession, and receive the benefit of absolution, to which end the priest is ordered to use these words, ' By the authority of Christ committed to me, I absolve thee of all thy sin ;' you will never acquiesce in the absolution, where you acknowledge no commission, nor can you expect any efficacy, which dependeth upon the authority." Bithop Pearton, Minor Theological Works, vol. IL,p. 237, Oxford, 1844. In the convocation of 1711-12, a sermon was preached hy Dr. Brett (b. 1667— d. 1743) on the Remission of Sins, which the Lower House twice refused to refer to a committee for examination. The heads of that sermon were these : — 1. That our Saviour did leave with His Apostles a power to remit or retain sins. 2. That this power was transmitted by them to their successors, and continues in the Church to this day. 3. How useful and expedient it is that there should be such a power in the Church, and the great benefit it may be to the people if rightly used and applied. " By absolution as given by man," Dr. Brett understands : *' A power which God has committed to a certain order of men whom we call priests, to declare and pronounce remission of sins to the penitent in his name, which declaration and pronunciation is effectual to the remission of sins, Christ having promised that, whosesoever sins they remit, they are remitted. For since the priest acts but by commission, that is by a dele- gated power, in this case, ho cannot pardon in his own name, but in God's name only. The pardon is God's, and the priest's part is to declare and pronounce it ; and what he does thus declare and pronounce, clave non errante, God has promised to ratify and confirm. Therefore, as I said in my sermon, it is not the man that forgives, it is not the man that pardons you, but God himself does it by the ministry of his priest, who is the ambassador for Christ, and appointed in Christ's stead to reconcile you to God." Brttt'a doctrine of Remission of Sins explained and vindicated, London,!! 12. " But, lastly, the persons to whom this absolution must be pronounced, is another convincing proof that it is more than merely declarative. For if it implied no more than that all sinners are pardoned by God upon their repentance ; it might as well be pronounced to such as continue in their sins, as to those that have repented of them ; nay, it would be more proper and advantageous to be pronounced to the former than to the latter ; because as I have observed, such a declaration might be a great inducement to for- ward their conversion. But yet we see that this form Is not to be pronounced to such as the church desires should repent, but to those who Aat;< repented. The absolution and remission of sins, which the priest here declares and pronounces from God, is declared and pronounced to his people being 8 58 I penitent, i. e., to those who are penitent at the time of pronouncing the abso- lution. For as to those who are impenitent, the priest is not here said to have any power or commandment relating to them ; they are quite left out, as persons not fit or proper to have this commission executed in their behalf. From all which it is plain, that this absolution is more than declarative, that it is truly effective ; insuring and conveying to the proper subjects thereof the very absolution or remission itself. It is as much a bringing of God's pardon to the penitent member of Christ's church, and as effectual to his present benefit, as an authorised messenger bringing a pardon from bis sovereign to a condemned penitent criminal, is effectual to his present par- don and release from the before appointed punishment." Wheatly (1686-1742) on the Boojc of Common Prayer, page 118, Oxford, 1839. "And hath given power and commandment to His ministers.] — Whoever hath a just right and absolute authority, may either exercise it in person, or depute others by communicating to them their power to act sub- ordinately, and then these substitutes have a ministerial right, so far as their commission extends. A temporal prince can do this, and choose which of his subjects he pleaseth, to act in his name, and by his authority. Much more may the God of heaven do so, and we are taught whom he did choose, Malt, xxviii., ult. viz. : the Apostles and their successors, who are his embassadors, 2 Cor. v. 20, his ministers and stewards of divine mysteries, 1 Cor. iv., 1 ; nay, the presidents of souls, and the familiar friends of God, the scripture calls them angels, because .they have the same employment which the ancients ascribed to angels, to convey messages between God and man, to present their prayers unto Him, and to bring back the news of his love, and especially to bring this pardon to the penitent, yea to proclaim it even to the impenitent. Wherefore let those that despise the priest, or who invade his office, or allow no difference between a pardon pronounced by him and an ordinary person, take heed of contemning those whom God so highly honours, and beware they intrench not upon the supreme power of the Sender, in disallowing the subordinate power of those that are sent. A condemned man may be told of a pardon intended to him, but he will then believe and rejoice in it, when his prince's herald approacheth with it in his hands; and should not we shew as much reverence and joy upon the news of a greater absolution ; as that (a) learned Professor did, who, though in some things he dissented, yet in this of absolution was so clear, that he desired it on his death-bed, and kissed the hands of his (6) brother Profes- sor, who at his earnest request had absolved him." Dean Comber (rfierf_ 1778), Companion to the Temple, part I., page i8, London, 1684. The above extract, as will be seen, relates to the form of absolution in Morning and Evening Prayer ; the next two, (a) Dr. Rejnoldr. (b) Dr. Holland. 59 by BO the A hen his ews in he Ifes- 48, of ?0, from the same author, relate to the forms in the Communion Service, and in the Visitation of the Sick, respectively. " Ton have said with David, We have ginned, wherefore God hath sent his minister like another Nathan, to assure you, that, He hath also put away the iniquity of your sin, 2 Sam. xii. 13. And though David might by his faith in the promises have found some comfort, yet neither so sure nor so sweet a consolation as when he receives it from the mouth of a special messenger. So likewise if we would choose to believe rather than dispute, it would be a powerful cordial to every troubled spirit by a particular officer from the King of Heaven to be thus saluted ; and he that cannot value this absolu- tion from the priest, can no other way receive satisfaction to his doubts and fears, unless he expect to be assured of his remission by an immediate revelation, or can be content to stay till the day of judgment for the resolu- tion of this great enquiry. Only let us be careful that our repentance be sincere, and then we may with much joy hear the following absolution, which very briefly we shall now explain." Ibid, part HI., page 96. "First, in the deprecatory part we commemorate the Author of this power [our Lord Jesus Christ] who by his death purchased remission of sins for all mankind, and therefore he alone is the judge of all men, having the su- preme power in himself originally to save or to condemn. Secondly, — The persons to whom he hath delegated this power, viz., the ministers of his church, Matt, xviii. 18, John xx. 23. To these he hath committed the min- istry of reconciliation, 2 Cor. v. 18. They are first to bring sinners to sub- mit to Jesus, and when they do so they have power to reconcile them. Whoever is rightfully endued with plenary authority to forgive, as Jesus is, may exercise this power by himself, or by his chosen deputies, as the Chris- tian bishops and priests in all ages have been deputed : they therefore act in his name, and exercise the power which he gave thorn, when they do ab- solve unfeigned penitents ; and they can absolve no other, as appears. — Thirdly, — By the limitation as to those who are subjects fit and capable of the benefit of this power, viz. : (all sinners who truly repent and believe.) We being servants, must use our derived power, not according to our own will, but His from whom we receive it ; Qod will not forgive any without faith and repentance, and we must not pretend to be greater than He ; we must see good signs of repentance and faith, otherwise we have no commis- sion to grant this absolution, nor will the sick man have any benefit by it if we do. Fourthly, — Here is the petition itself, viz., that Jesus will [forgive him his offences] that is, by confirming in heaven what we do on earth, that He who is our Lord will forgive by our ministry, for we presume not to exercisa>«ur power till we have first begged of him to show mercy, who only fully and finally can forgive." Ibid, part IV., p. 128. The following extract relates to the " sealing of the remii- sion in the reception of the Holy Communion :" t • 60 "Wherefore in this sacrament, — if it be rightly receiyed with a true faith, — ve be assured that our sins be forgiren, and the league of peace and the testament of Ood is confirmed between Him and us, so that whoso- ever, by a true faith doth eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood hath ever- lasting life by him — which thing when we feel in our hearts at the receiving of the Lord's Supper, what thing can be more joyful, more pleasant or more comfortable unto us?" Cranmer't Semaina by Jenkyru, vol, II., p. 807, Oxford, 1888. The two following quotations are taken from the writings of Richard Baxter, whose works wonld serve, not on this point only, but on many others, to warn those who reject the authority of the church, of the gulph to which they are imperceptibly drifting. The puritan of the seventeenth century becomes a Romanist to the representative of his school in the nineteenth century. The Church of England stood between Rome and Baxter in his days ; now Baxter can, in some points at least, scarcely be distinguished from a Romanist by men who yet call themselves members and ministers of the Church of England. " Here you may safely trust your souls : for the love of God is the fountain of this offer, John iii. 16, and the blood of the Son of God hath purchased it : the faithfulness and truth of God is engaged to make the promise good. Miracles have sealed up the truth of it ; preachers are sent through the world to proclaim it ; the aacramenta are inatituted and uaed for the aoletnn delivery of the mercy offered, to them that will accept it." Baxtefa Call to the Unconverted, page 35, Religioua T^aet Society* a edition. '* The ministers of the gospel are ready to assist thee, to instruct thee, and pronounce the abaolving worda of peace to thy aoul ; they are ready to pray for thee, and to aeal up thy pardon by the adminiatration of the holy sacrament. And yet art thou not ready ?" Ibid, p. 57. My Lord, I consider myself peculiarly fortunate in finding, in a publication of the Religious Tract Society, almost the very words of which the Bishop of Huron complains. I consider that these testimonies sufficiently acquit the teaching of the College of the charge of being contrary to that of the Church of England. I cannot, however, permit myself to abstain from saying, with the deepest regret, that, if the question be of teaching "in the 61 he to er, est the highest degree dangerous/' then it can scarcely be con- ceived that any teaching should bo more dangerous to the Church of England in this province than that of the Bishop of Huron, when he says : '^ If baptism, the supper of the Lord, and the authoritative absolution, take away sin, and seal the pardon of the transgressor, then the Church of Rome is right, and our forefathers were unjustifiable schism- atics in separating from her communion." The Bishop here omits, indeed, as I observed in my former letter, all mention of the most important condition of repentance; but, taking the words as they stand, what would " our forefathers" have said could they have read this rash admission ? What would they have said could they have seen their own lines of de- fence so utterly abandoned ? — could they have seen Rome condemned, not for her errors, but for the catholic truths which those errors have been suffered to overlie ? I further observe, with great astonishment, that the Bishop considers the doctrine of the efficacy of the sacra- ments for the remission of sins, and the power and authority of the ipinister to pronounce absolution to the penitent, to be inconsistent with the doctrine of Justification by Faith, as it is taught in the eleventh article. That article refers us, for a larger expression of its meaning, to the Homily of Justifi- cation, which is generally understood to be the same with that which now bears the title of " A Sermon of the Salva- tion of Mankind." That homily, then, (Homilies, p. 25, Oxford, 1822,) after speaking of our justification through " God's mercy and Christ's merits," says : " Insomuch that infants, being baptized and dying in their infancy, are by this sacrifice washed from their sins, brought to God's favour, and made His children, and inheritors of his kingdom of heaven. And they which in act or deed do sin after their baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed to their damnation. This is that justification or righteousness which St. Paul speaketh of when he saith, — no man ii justified by the works of the law, but freely by faith in Jesus Christ." Again, page 33, we find : * '* Nevertheless, because faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of li: 62 our tint, and that by faith given u« of God we embrace the promite of Ood't mercy, and of the remintion of our tins, (which thing none other of our virtues or irorks properly doth,) therefore soripture useth to say, that faith with- out works doth justify. " , Surely the doctrine of Justification by Faith, rightly understood, is not inconsistent with the statement that faith sends us to Christ for remission of our sins through sacra- ments and ordinances of His appointment. Again the Homily says, (p. 34) : « Our office is, not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly, after that we are baptized or juatified, not caring how few good works we do, &o." Again, what does Bishop Jewel say of the benefit of baptism ? <* As for that M. Harding here toucheth as an error defended by certain, I know not by whom, that baptism giveth not full remission of sins, he may command it home again to Louvain amongst his fellows, and join it with other of his and their vanities. For it is no part nor portion of our doctrine. We confess, and have eveifmore taught, that in the sacrament of baptism, by the death and blood of Christ, is given remission of all manner sins, and that not in half, or in part, or by way of imagination, or by fancy, but full, whole, and perfect of all together; so that now, as St Paul saith, "There is no damnation unto them that be in Christ Jesus." Bishop Jewel, Dtfenee of the Apology of the Church of England. Works, Vol. v., pp. 87-8, Oxford, 1848. What does Dr. Waterland say of the benefit of the Lord's Supper ? " I begin with premising that God alone properly confers remission of sins: whatever secondary means or instruments may be made use of in it, yet it is God that does it. ' Who can forgive sins but God only ?' We read that 'itisGodthatjustifieth.' Ju<a<«(0» (among which remission of sins is one) or if we are said to apply those benefits, and of consequence that remission, to ourselves, by faith, &c., all this is to be understood only of our receiving such remission, hXid partaking of those benefits, which it is God that grants and confers, and who also, properly speaUng, applies every benefit of that kind to the faith- ful communioant. And whether he does it by his word or by his ordi- nances, and by the hands of His ministers, He does it however ; and when such 63 abtolution or remitaion is real and true, it is not an human absolution, but a divine grant, transmitted to us by the hands of men administering the ordi- nances of Ood. Ood has sometimes sent His extraordinary grants of that kiadhy prophets and other of&eera extraordinary ; and we may do the like in a fixed and standing method by His ordinary officers or mimsters duly commissioned thereunto. But whoever he be that brings the pardon, or who pursuant to commission notifies it to the party in solemn form, yet the pardon, if true, is the gift of Ood, and it is God alone or the Spirit of Qod, that applies it to the soul, and converts it to spiritual nutriment and increase. This I presume may be looked upon as a ruled point, and needs not more words to prove it." Waterland. Works, Vol. IV., page Qi2, Oxford, 1843, I would also refer to Dr. Waterland's valuable tract on Justification, as a whole. It is to be found at the beginning of the sixth volume of his works, Oxford, 1843. The follow- ing extracts from that treatise may shew how entirely unten- able in Waterland's view is the position that the doctrine of the eflScacy of the sacraments as means appointed for the remission of sin is inconsistent with the doctrine of Justifica- tion by Faith. " The next remarkable text is, < Except one be bom of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, cannot see the kingdom of God,' where we, may observe, that horn again, in the second verse, is inter- preted of baptism, (sign and thing signified,) in the fifth, and the emphatioal word cannot, is twice made use of in that case. What room then is there left for pretending any direct and positive promise from God to justify any man before, or without that ordinary mean ? Say i\xski faith is our instrument for receiving justification, which is saying enough; still baptism must be God's instrument, ordinarily, for applying or conferring it, in virtue of what our Lord Himself, in that place, has twice solemnly declared." Ibid, p. 11. <'So again in the case of St. Paul, at his conversion to Christianity : he had been a true believer from the time when he said, ' Lord what wilt Thou have me to do?' But he was not yet Justified: his sins remained in charge for three days at least longer : for it was so long before Ananias came to him, and said, * Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' Baptism was at length his grand absolution, hia patent of pardon, his instrument of Justification granted him from above : neither was he Justified till he received that divine seal, in as much as his sins were upon him till that very time." Ibid, pp. 11-12. r ^^smmmm 64 V. The Sacraments. The Bishop's next objection relates to the sacraments. In justification of my teaching respecting the name, their number, and their general necessity, I quote the following authorities : " And as for the number of them (the sacramentct) if they should be con- sidered according to the exact signification of a sacrament, namely, for the visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament^, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin, and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin ; yet by the express word of the New Testameat, it hath not this premise an- nexed and tied to the visible aign, which is imposition of hands. For ibis visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expresbly commanded in the New Testament to bn used in absolution, as the visible signs in baptism and the Lord's Supper are : and therefore absolution is no such sacrament aa baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath his visible sign and promise ; yet it lacksi the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, bo such sacraments as baptism and the communion are. But in a general acceptiou, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to any thing whereby an holy thing is signifi< J. In which under- anding of the word the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for sup- plying the number of th*^ seven sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremoaies, as to oil, washing of feet, and su3h like ; not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the same signification that the the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore, St. Augustine, weigh- ing the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Janua- rius, and also in the third book of Christian Doctrine, affirmeth that the sacraments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number ; and in both places maketh mention ex- pressly of two, the sacrament of baptism, ai 1 the Supper of the Lord. And although there are retained by the order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the institution of ministers ir. the church, matrimony, confirmation of children, by examin- ing them of tholr knowledge in the artiiles of thu . aith, and joining thereto the prayers of the church for them, and likewise for the isitation of the rick ; yet no man ought to take these for sacraments in such signification and meaning as the sacrament of baptism and the Lord's Supper are ; but cither for godly states of life necessary in Christ's Church, and therefore worthy to bo sot forth by public action and solemnity, by the ministry of the church, ov elB» jadged tu bo such ordinances as may make for the instruction, comfort, u ^ edification of Christ's Church." Homily ofiht Common Prayer and Saeramtnti, pp. 880-1, Oxjord, 1822. 65 " Howbeit we will not greatly strive for the name. It appeareth hereby, that many things, that indeed and by special property be no saeramentt, may nevertheless pass under the general name of a tacratnent. But thus we say : It cannot be proved, neither by the scriptures nor by the ancient learned fathers, that this number of sacraments is so specially appointed, and conse- crate to this purpose, or that there be neither more nor less sacraments in the church, but only seven," Bishop Jewel. Works, vol. V.,p. 27, Oxford, 1848. Tho following extract from Archbishop Bramhall, relates to Orders : " These grounds are over-weighty to be counterbalanced by the tradition of the Pptine and of the Chalice, an upstart custom or innovation, confirmed but the other day by the decree of Eugenius the Fourth ; a time too late in conscience for introducing either a double matter and form, or a ne^ mat. ter and form, of that, which is acknowledged by them, and not denied by ut in a larger sense, to be a sacrament. All we say is this, that it is not a sacra- ment generally necessary to salvation, as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are." BramhaWs Works, vol. I., p. 271-2, London, 1842. "And to this question the answer is very exact, that there are 'only two, as generally necessary to salvation,' Some other sacred rites Christ did institute for some sorts or oases of particular persons, as imposition of hands, &c. But of this kind, wherein all men to whom Christianity is re- vealed, or that expwt salvation from Christ, should think themselves concerned to which all Christians are strictly obliged, so far as not to neglect them wil- fully, or to omit them when they may be had ; of this kind, I say, there be only two." Hammond. Practical Catechism, Oxford, 1847, p. 346. " Tho word sacrament was used by the ancient writers of the Church, for any sacred or holy mystery, rit:e, or ceremony ; every one calling what holy thing he pleased, a sacrament. By which means the number of things that have been called by this name is very great and uncertain. Where- fore the question here is not, how many sacraments there are in general, or how many things have been, or may bo called sacraments ; but how many sacraments hath Christ ordained, and that too in his church, to bo always observed there ? "Of such sacraments there be two, and two only, as generally necessary to salvation. There may bo other things ordained, but nut as necessary to salvation; some as necessary to salvation, uut notgenernlly. Astheordina. tion or consecration of persons to holy offices. This is necessary to salvation, because it is necessary to the right adiainistration of the means of grace and solvation. But it is not generally necessary : it is not necessary for all men; as if lu'uo could bo saved exoopt they be in holy orders. And therefore neither can that bo said to bo ord'iinod by Christ as generally necessary to salvation ; nor any other sacred rites, but only two ; that is to say, Baptism and the Lord's Supper." Btveridgt't Works, vol, I., pp. 100-101, London, 1851. I! - f I ii. 66 '* Q. Why are these two saoraments generally necetsary to salvation f "A. Because without God's grace we cannot be saved, (Ephea. ii., 8,) and God hath determined to give his grace to those only who seek it in the devout use of these saoraments, where Hit providence affords them, fiy which sacraments we bind ourselves to be God's faithful servants, and God obligeth himself to give us all (praces necessary to fit us for heaven." Bp. WiUon'a Works, vol. IV., p. 80, Oxford, 1851. Dr. Nicholls (1664-1712) Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer. "Generally necessary.] — By generally necessary we understand that all persons of what rank or quality soever are obliged to the performance of them, unless they labour under an incapacity by reason of their age or otherwise, or are hindered therefrom by an invincible necessity." Note on the Catechism, London, folio, 1710, {not paged.) " The word sacrament, by virtue of its original in the Latin tongue, signifies any sacred or holy thing or action, and among the heathens was particularly applied to denote sometimes a pledge deposited in a sacred place ; some- times an oath, the most sacred of obligations ; and especially that oath of fidelity which the soldiery took to their general. In scripture it is not used at all. By the early ifriters of the western church, it was used to express almost any thing relating to our holy religion ; at least any thing that wasfgurative and signified somewhat further than at first sight appeared. But afterwards a more confined use of the word prevailed by degrees ; and in that stricter sense, which bath long been the common one, and which our catechiem follows, the nature of a sacrament comprehends the following particulars." Archbishop Seeker {died ''' i otherwise and in the saoraftients themselves." • Hooker. Ecclesiastical Polity ^ V. 65. 1. « The church is in Christ as Eve was in Adam. Yea, by grace we are every of us in Christ and in his Church, aa by nature we are in those our first parents. God made Eve' of the rib of Adam. And his Church he frameth out of the very flesh, the very wounded and bleeding side of the Son of man. His body crucified, and his blood shed for the life of the world, are the true elements of that heavenly being, which maketh us such as him- self is of whom we come. For which cause the words of Adam may be fitly the words of Christ concerning his Church, ' flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bones,' a true native extract out of mine own body. So that in him ivm according to his manhood we according to our heavenly being are as branches in that root out of which they grow. *'To all things he is life, and to men light, as the Son of Ood; to the Church both life and light eternal by being made the son of man for us, and by being in us a Saviour, whether we respect him as God, or as man. Adam is in us as an original cause of our nature, and of that corruption of nature which causeth death, Christ as the cause original of restoration to life ; the person ot Adam is not in us, but his nature, and the corruption of his nature derived into all men by propagation ; Christ having Adam's nature, as we have, but incorrupt, deriveth not nature but inoorruption, and that immediately from his own person into all that belong unto him. As there- fore we are really partakers of the body of sin and death received from Adam, so except we be truly partakers of Christ, and as really possessed of his spirit, all we speak of eternal life is but a dream. " That which quiekeneth us is the Spirit of the second Adam, and his flesh that wherewith he quiekeneth. That which in him made our nature uncorrupt, was the union of his Deity with our nature. And in that respect the sentence of death and condemnation which only taketh hold upon sinful fiesb, could no way possibly extend unto him. This caused his voluntary death for others to prevail with God, and to have the force of an expiatory Tl sacrifice. The Mood of Christ, as the Apostle witnesseth, doth therefore take away sin, becaitse, • through the Eternal Spirit he offered himself nnto God without spot.' That wiiich sanctified our nature in Christ, that which made it a sacrifice available to take away sin, is the same which qoickeneth it, raised it out of the grave after death, and exalted it with glory. . Seeing therefore that Christ is in us as a quickening spirit, the first degree of communion with Christ must needs consist in the participation of his spirit, which Cyprian in that respect well termeth gertnanisrimam toeietatem, the highest and truest society that can be between man and him, which is both God and man in one. These things St. Cyril duly considering, reproveth their speeches which taught that only the Deity of Christ is the vine whereupon we by faith do depend as branches, and that neither his flesh nor our bodies are comprised in this resemblance. For doth any man doubt but that even/rom thefleah of Christ our very bodiea do receive that life which shall make them glorious at the latter day, and for which they are already accounted parts of his blessed body ? Our corruptible bodies could never live the life they shall live, were it not that here they are joined with his body which is incorruptible, and that his is in ours as a cause of immortality, a cause by removing through the death and merit of his own flesh that which biadered the life of ours. Christ is there- fore both as God and as man, that true vine whereof we both spritually and corporally are branches. The mixture of his bodily substance with ours is a thing which the ancient fathers disclaim. Yet the mixture of his flesh with ours they speak of, to signify what our very bodies through mystietU con- junction receive from that vital efficacy which we know to be tn his ; and from bodily mixtures they borrow divers similitudes rather to declare the truth, than the manner of coherence between his sacred, and the sanctified bodies of saints." Hooker. Eccl. Pol., bookV., ch. 56, sees. 7, 8,9. " If then the presence of Christ with them did so much move, judge what their thoughts and affections were at the time of this new presentation of Christ, not before their eyes, but within their sculs. They had learned before that his flesh and blood are the true cause of eternal life ; that this they are not by the bare force of their own substance, but through the dignity and worth of his person which offered them up by way of sacrifice for the life of the whole world, and doth make them still effectual thereunto : finally that to us they are life in particular, by being particularly received. Thus much they knew, although as yet they understood not perfectly to what effect or issue the same would come, till at the length being assembled for no other cause which they could imagine but to have eaten the Passover only that Moses appointeth, when they saw their Lord and Master with hands and eyes lifted up to lieaven first bless and consecrate for the endless good of all generations till the world's end, the chosen elements of bread and wine, which elements made for ever the instruments of life by virtue of hia divine benediction, they being the first that were commanded to receive trom him, the first which were warranted by his promise that not only unto 72 them at the present time but to whomsoever they and their successors after them did duly administer the same, those mysteries should serve as conducts of life and convey aneet of hia body and blood unto them, was it possible they should hear that voice, ' Take, eat, this is my body ; drink ye all of this, this is my blood ;' possible that doing what was required and believing what was promised, the same should have present effect in them, and not fill them with a kind of fearful admiration at the heaven which they saw in themselves?" , ffooker, Ecclesiaatieal Polxty, V. 67, 4. < I « This day v«rium earo factum est, ' The word was made flesh,' and so must be ' apprehended' in both. But specially in His flesh as this day giveth it, as this day would have us. ' Now the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body, of the flesh, of Jesus Christ V It is surely, and by it and by nothing more are we made partakers of this blessed union. A little before He said, ' Because the children were partakers of flesh and blood. He also would take part with them' — may not we say the same ?— Because He hath so done, taken our's of us, we also ensuing His steps will participate with Him and with Bis flesh wh)ch He hath taken of us. It is most kindly to take part with Him in that which He took part in with ua, and that, to no other end, hai that He might make the receiving of it by us a means whereby He might * dwell in us, and we in Him ;' He taking our flesh, and we receiving His Spirit ; by His flesh which He took of us receiving His Spirit which He imparteth to us ; that, as He by ours be- came ' consors humance naturce,' so we by His might become consortes Divines naturae, 'partakers of the Divine nature.' " Bishop Andrewes' Sermons. 1st Sermon on the Nativity, vol. I., p. 16> Oxford, 1841. " Lastly, for sitting ; that is His Kingdom, that is kept for dies novissi- morum novissimus, 'the last day indeed.' That is yet in hope only. The same flesh that cleansed our sins, the same now sitteth on the throne, and so hath both virtues ; for the present a power to purge, for the future a power likewise to exalt. The same blood is the blood of sacrifice for remission of sins, and the blood of the New Testament for the passing to us the bequest which is the right of His purchase for which He was made heir." Bishop Andrewes' Sermons, vol. l.,page 116, Oxford,\^il. <' But, omitting the dignity of Christ's human nature in the general, it will be a more profitable search to examine the particular effects or efScacy which Am human nature, now exalted, hath in respect of us. These may not be measured, much less limited, by other men's most noble faculities or perfec- tions. The most dull sight on earth may see as far as the sun or stars ; and the most gulck sight eannot see beyond them. No man's eye-sight can pierce through the thickest clouds, much less through the heavens above, or through the rooks here on earth. Though thus to do were absolutely impossible to man, or any other creature endued with sight, we might not 73 it loy he feo- &nd Ban bvc, tely loot hence thus collect, Christ's glorified eyes are human eyes, as ours are — oreated eyes as ours are, therefore he cannot with these bodily eyes look down from heaven, and behold what is done, or lies hid in the most secret comers of the earth ; or that his faculty of hearing, because a oreated fac- ulty, cannot apprehend all the blasphemies or oaths, even the most secret murmurings of his enemies, either against him or his church. Or admit- ting any saint's eyes, already glorified in body in heaven, could by vision of the divine nature see all things that are done in earth, or that his ears could hear all the conference that passeth in this kingdom for some one day ; yet this excellency of his outward senses being supposed, his internal or intellective faculties were not able to distinguish betwixt every thing so heard or seen, or to censure every word or deed as it deserves ; nor could his memory perhaps perfectly retain what for the present he apprehends or conceives. Yet may we not hence argue, ' Christ's intellective faculties are but human (not divine) ; ergo, he cannot distinctly and infallibly judge or censure every thing he sees or hears, or infallibly retain the records of his judgment or censure inviolate and entire unto the day of judgment.' Bound we are rather to believe, that Christ as man, or with his human eyes, sees all our wrongs, and as man hears all our prayers, and takes notice of all our doings ; or, that he, who as man shall be our judge, is in the mean- time an eye-witness of all our misdeeds or well-doings, an ear-witness of all our speeches, good or bad. Nor may we again, by broken inductions, gath- ered from the effects or efficacy of natural bodies, or created substances upon other bodies, take upon us to limit or bound the efficacy of Christ's body upon the bodies or souls which he hath taken to his protection. We may not collect, that Christ's body, because comprehended within the hea- vens, can exercise no real operation upon our bodies or souls here on earth ; or that the live influence of his glorified human nature may not be diffused through the world as he shall be pleased to dispense it, or to sow the seeds of life issuing from it, sometimes here, sometimes there. <* This real, though virtual influence of Christ's human nature, is haply that which the Lutherans call the real ubiquitary presence of Christ's body. Luther himself never denied Christ's very body or human nature to be com- prehended within the heavens ; and yet he affirmed it to be < present with us in such a manner, as the sound is present with us which is really made or caused a great way from us.' And we may not deny this real influence or virtual presence of Christ to be in a manner infinite ; or at least to ex- tend itself to all created substances that are capable of it, in what created distance soever they be from his body, whose residence we believe to be in the highest heavens at the right hand of God. '« The only sure anchor of all our hopes for a joyful resurrection unto the life of glory, is the mystical union which must be wrought here on earth betwixt Christ's human nature glorified, and our mortal or dissoluble nature. The divine nature indeed is the prime fountain of life to all, but though in- exhaustible in itself, yet a fountain whereof we cannot drink, save as it is derived unto us through the human nature of Christ." Jackson's Works, vol. X., pp. 84-86, Oxford, 1844. I© 74 <* In the next place, we are to believe and acknowledge, that as Ood the Father doth neither forgive nor vouchsafe reconciliation, but for the merits and satisfaction of his only Son ; so neither will he vouchsafe to convey this or any other blessing unto us, which his Son hath purchased for us, but only through his Son : not only through him as our Advocate or Intercessor* but through Him as our Mediator ; that is through his humanity, as the organ or conduit, or as the only bond, by which we are united and reconciled unto the Divine nature. For although the Holy Spirit, or third person in Trimty, doth immediately and by personal propriety work faith and other spiritual graces in our souls, yet doth he not by these spiritual graces unite our souls or spirits immediately unto himself, but unto Christ's human nature." Jackson's Works, vol. X., p. 40, Oxford, 1844. " Yet was it fit also, that this head should be of the same nature with the body which is knit unto it : and therefore that He should so be God, as that He might partake of our flesh likewise. ' For we are members of His body,' saith the same apostle, 'of His flesh and of His bones.' And 'except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man,' saith our Saviour Himself, ' and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' ' He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.' Declaring thereby, first, that by His mystical and supernatural union, we are as truly conjoined with Bi as the meat and drink we take is with its, when by the ordinary work of ti. , it is converted into our own substance. Secondly, that this conjunction is imme- diately made with His human nature. Thirdly, that the ' Lamb slain,' that is, ' Christ crucified,' hath by that death of His, made His flesh broken, and His blood poured out for us upon the cross, to be fit food for the spiritual nourishment of our souls, and the very well-spring from whence, by the power of His Qod-head, all life and grace is derived unto us." Usher's Works, vol. IV., p. 608, Dublin, 1631. " Certain, however, it is, that Bishop Cosin (with all our other learned and judicious divines) was zealous against the notion of two true bodies of Christ, and very strongly asserted, yea, and often inculcated, in that small treatise, where he had not much room to spare, that the natural body is the thing signified, the thing spiritually given and received by the faithful in the Eucharist. He was well aware how much depended upon that momentous principle ; as well because it was the safe, the only clue to lead serious Christians through all the labyrinths of contending parties, as also because it was fixing the economy of man's salvation upon its true and firm basis, which is this : that in the sacraments we are made and continued members of Christ's body^ of his flesh and of his bones. Our union with the Deity rests entirely in our mystical union with our Lord's humanity, which is personally united with his Divine nature, which is essentially united with God the Father, the head and fountain of all. So stands the economy; which shews the high importance of the principle before mentioned. And it is well that Romanists, and Lutherans, and Greeks also, even the whole east and west, have preserved it, and yet preserve it ; though some of them have 75 J of laU was ise bts m miserably corrupted it by the wood, hay, and stubble which they have buitt upon it; namely, by a local presence, a literal exhibition, and an oral man- ducation, with other the like novel additions or defalcations." Waterland's Works, vol. r.,p. 212, Oxford, 1843. The following extracts from Bishop Ridley go more ex- pressly to show that the Humanity of our Lord is partici- pated by means of the Holy Communion : Now then > ou will say, what kind of presence do they grant, and what do they deny ? Briefly, they deny the presence of Christ's body in the nat- ural substance of his human and assumed nature, and grant the presence of the same by grace ; that is, they affirm and say, that the substance of the natural body and blood of Christ is only remaining in heaven, and so shall be unto the latter day, when he shall come again in glory, accompanied ■ with the angels of heaven, to judge both the quick and the dead. And the same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christ, because it is united in the divine nature in Christ, the second person of the Trinity^ therefore it hath not only life in itself, but is also able to give, and doth give life unto so many as be, or shall be partakers thereof; that is, that to all that do believe on His name, which are not born of blood, as St. John saith, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but are born of Qod, though the self-same substance abide still in heaven, and they, for the time of their pilgrimage, dwell here upon earth ; by grace (I say) that is, by the gift of this life (mentioned in John) and the properties of the same meet for our pilgrimage here upon earth, the same body of Christ is here present with us. Even as, for example, we say the same sun, which, in substance, never removeth his place out of the hea-vens, is yet present here by his beams, light, and natural influence where it shineth upon the earth. For Qod's word and his sacraments be, as it were, the beams of Christ, which is Solj'ustitice, the sun of righteousness. Bishop Ridley's Treatise against Traruubstantiation. Works. Parker's Society, page 18. " Of Christ's real presence there may be a double understanding. If you take the real presence of Christ according to the real and corporal sabstanoa which he took of the virgin, that presence being in heaven, cannot be on the earth also. But if you mean a real presence, ' secundum rem aliquam qua ad corpus Christi pertinet,' i.e., according to something that appertaineth to Christ's body, certes the ascension and abiding in heaven are no let at all to that presence, .wherefore Christ's body, after that sort, is here present to us in the Lord's supper ; by grace, I say, as Epiphanius speaketh it." Bp. Ridley's Disputation at Oxford, Works, Parker Society's Publications, page 218. Ridley's view seems to be fully borne out by the following statement of Calvin, which I quote, because it may have more ti III weight with some than the testimony of the English bishop and martyr ; and because it is satisfactory to observe, that, differing widely as they did on some points, they are here so well agreed : "Aliud prsBterea caput controyersom est de voce ^irituaUter, a qua multi abhorrent, qaod patant imaginarinm aliqaid Tel inane notari. Ergo hie etiam suocarrat definitio necesse est. Spiritualis ergo inanduoatio camali opponitur. Camalis autem Tocatur, qua patant quidam aubstanti- am ipsam Christi in nos transfandi, sicuti panis comeditur. Ex opposito autem dioitur spiritualiter nobis Christi corpus dari in Ccena, quia facit arcana Spiritus sancti yirtus, ut qusa locorum spatio distant, inter se uniantur : ac proinde ut h coelo ad nos penetret vita ex came Christi, quse vis et facnltas vivificandi nou incommode abstractum aliquid a substantia did posset, modo sane hoc et dextre intelligatur, manere scilicet in coelo Christi corpus^ et tamen ad nos qui in terrS. perigrinamur, Titam ex ejus substantia manare ao pervenire." " Another disputed point relates to the term ' spiritually,' from which many shrink, because they conceive that it denotes something imaginary and unreal. It is consequently necessary here also to have recourse to a definition. Spiritual eating thbn is opposed to carnal, and we term that carnal, by which some imagine that the very substance of Christ is trans- fused into us, just as bread is eaten. On the contrary, the body of Christ is said to be given to us in the supper spiritually, because the secret energy of the Holy Spiril occasions that things, which are locally distant, are united with each cither, and accordingly that life penetrates from heaven to us from the flesh of Christ; which power and capacity of vivifying might not unsuitably be styled something derived {abstractum) from the substance, provided that this ue soundly and aptly understood, that is to say that the body of Christ remains in heaven, and yet life from its substance flows forth and reaches unto us who are pilgrims upon earth." Joan. Calvin. De verd. participatione Christi in Coen&, Opera, vol. VIJL, p. 744, Amstelodami, 1667. 'I J !i These authorities appear to me fully to establish the sound- ness of the doctrine against which exception has been taken, at least if Mr. Procter's language is to be interpreted in the sense, which I should suppose that every intelligent reader would attach to it, and which I am satisfied that he intended it to bear. Before the charge, or rather the insinuation, of the Bishop of Huron, I should have thought it quite unne- cessary to explain to any one that I do not understand, by the "glorified humanity" of our Lord, any thing which can be oralli/ received. 77 Nor again do I understand^ when Mr. Procter says, that " every faithful recipient there partakes of Christ's glorified humanity," that he dreams of any local presence of this hea- venly gift, in or with the earthly elements, but means simply that, in faithfully receiving the sign, we surely receive the thing signified. By the word " there " I understand, as the Bishop of Huron seems to have done, " in the sacrament," and by the " sacrament " not the outward material sign^ but the holy celebration. Not in any controversial spirit, but with an honest desire to elucidate what I believe to be the truth, I will quote a few words from the letter of a Graduate of Trinity College which appeared in the "Globe" newspaper of August Slst. The writer, treating at some length of the passage in Mr. Proc- ter's book, to which the Bishop refers, uses the following words : *' Iq the meantime He (our Lord) feeds His people, not after the manner that such disgusting absurdities would teach us, but by the sending them that Comforter which, in His mercy, He has promised them." I quote this sentence for the sake of the positive clause only ; the language used in the negative clause I am assured the writer must hereafter deeply regret, whenever he shall have attained to riper Christian knowledge, and shall have learned how sad a thing it is even unawares to have spoken irreverently of sacred truth. He says, " Christ feeds His people by sending the Comforter," as if our Lord had died to give us, away from himself, this gift ; as if we should more truly say that, by His redemption. He had purchased for us the privilege of being made and continued members of the Holy Spirit, than that He had purchased for us the privi- lege of being made and continued, by the power of His Spiritf members of Himself. Our membership in Christ seems to be contemplated without any reference whatever to the mystery of His Incarnation, and to be regarded accord- ingly, as u. union, not differing in kind from that which might subsist between man and either the first or third Person of the Holy Trinity ; or it is supposed to mean only " member- ship in Christ's Church^'' as if this exhausted the impoi't of 78 Bif; St. Paul's st?'ong language ; or as if Christians were mem- bers one of another in any other way than by being really united to their Head. Let me beg especial attention to the distinct language of Hooker quoted above, where he points out tho truth of the agency of the Spirit, and the truth of our participation of Christ : "That which quickeneth us is ihc spirit of tho second Adam, and hisjUth that wherewith he quickeneth us." I ' The same doctrine is clearly tpught also in a passage quoted from Dr. Jackson. The closing words of that pas- sage are : ♦' For although the Holy Spirit, or third person in Trinity, doth immedi- ately and by personal propriety w&ri faith and other spiritual graces in our souls, yet doth ho not by these spiritual graces unite our souls or spirits immf- diately unto himself, but unto Christ's human nature. " Words to the same effect will be found in the following passagfc from Calvin. The whole passage relates to the gen- eral question under consideration, the words which appear in italics to this specie] point : *• Dico igitur, in Coenee mysterio per symbola panis et vini, Christum vere nobis exhiberi, adeoquo corpus et sanguinem ejus, in quibus omnem obodi- entiam pro comparanda nobis justitiii adimplevit : quo scilicet primum ia UQum corpus cum ipso ooalescamus , detnde participos substantio? ejus facti, in bonorum omnium commuaicationo virtutem quoque sentiamus. — * -X ■* * •* 4«- * •» •)(• Siquidem ut tinituui esse, pro perpetua corporis huraani rotionc, mininii; a.nbigimus, coeloque contineri quo semel receptum est, donee ad judicium redeat ; ita sub Lscc corruptibilia olementa lotrahere ipsum, ant nbique prtesens imaginari, prorsus ducimus uel'iis essu. Noque id sane (ii)us est, quo ipsius participatiotio fruairiur : quando hoc ben^cii per spiri*um luum nobi^ Dominu:. Uryitttr, ut unum carport, Spiritu cl anivu'i secumjiamus. Vin- culum ergo istius conjunctiouis est 8piritus Ciiristi, cujua nexu copulamur ; et quidam voluti canalis. per (lueni i/uicquid Chritfus ipte et tat et habit, ad noa dervatur. Nam si 8olcm coaspiciraua radii* iu terram omiciiiUcm, ad goncrandos, fovendcs, vcgetandjs ejusfiotussuam quodammodosubstantiam ad cf\m tiajitero ; cur interior bpiritus ('liriHli asset iiradnit < ad commur.i- oneui carnis et sanguinis ejus iu nos traducondam ? Quapropter Scriptui a ubi de nostra cum Christo participationo luijuitur, vim ejus univer.sam ad Spiritum refert. Pro multis tanieu uuum lucus sutficiet. Paulus enim ad Romanos, oapite ociavo, Christum uuii uliter in nobi" quam per Spiritum Buum habuaro disseri* ; quo tamen illam dc qua nunc strmo tst carnis et tan guinit communwnem non tollit, ltd ub uuo Spiritit effici docet, ut totum Chruitum : -""o. for the p,„po,e „f p„,°Z"* "»";••"' "W* 1. fuMlW .„ i/j; J»s suDstance to i^ *A ° ^'^'i^'s ravs trnn<.«,j* • y ""« 'iaw him remain- I cannot forbear, at the i-i,t „f . ,. the following ver- nor-in! . '"^'ousnesi., from citin,, "Woh r conclude r ' "™' P"~«^ f™'" '^»torIand,ti"h h; /-A "...1 /,/„.,.. ,„, there eue;;':' "^ "" "^^^ r-tako/s ? 80 ! i real and vital and mhitantial union, though withal mystical and tpiritual. Thus Hilary of Poiotiers (an eminent Father of that time) retorted the argu- ment of the adversaries ; throwing oflF their refined subtilties, by one plain and affecting consideration, drawn from the known doctrine of the Christian Sacraments." Waterland. Works, vol. V.,page 113, Oxford, 1843. VII. — Application of the Chapter of St. John. Language of the sixth The Bishop further objects to my adducing, in proof of the necessity of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the 6th chapter of St. John, v. 53, and he quotes from Cranmer to show that he understood the language of that chapter of spiritual manducation. An extract given from Cranmer below will show, that however he understood it, he applied it as I have done. Other authorities will prove that some of our divines have interpreted this chapter directly of the Eu- charist, while others have understood it to refer only infer- entially to that sacrament. I am perfectly satisfied to admit that it speaks of a supernatural gift which, both before the institution of the Eucharist and aftorwardrt, may have been, and may still be, received without it ; but for the reception of which the Holy Communion is the appointed mean, and the only mean whereby Holy Scripture assurea ii« that we shall receive it if duly prepared. It cannot be doubted that very many divines who explain the sixth chapter of St. John of spiritual, and not of sacramental, feeding, would nevertheless quote without hesitation the 53rd verse of that chapter in proof of the necessity of the Holy Communion, as being the external act of obedience, whereby wo receive the indispen- sable spi.'itual benefit, or perform the indispensable spiritual act. At all events, the quotations given below will vindicate me froM any gri'jvous error in making the use of the text which I have done, and I would invite especial attention to the quotation from Dr. Jackson, in which he argues that spir- itual 4,ud sacramental monducation are not opposite or incom- patible but mutually subordinate. "Tho suoramnntftl and mystioal bread being broken and di8tril>ut«<1 after the iuititutioa of Christ, and the rajrsUtitti wiu« bting llktwtM taken and 81 reeeiiTecl, be not only sacraments of the flesh of Christ wounded for ns and of his blood-shedding, but also be most certain sacraments for us, and (as a man would say) seals of God's promises and gifts, and also of that holy fellowship which we have with Christ and all his members. MoreoTer they be to us memorials of that heavenly food and nourishment, wherewith we are nourished unto eternal life, and the thirst of our boiling conscience quenched, and finally, whereby the hearts of the fai' 1 be replenished with unspeakable joy, and be corroborated and strength' aed unto all works of godliness. We are many, (saith St. Paul,) one bread and dne body, all vf» which do participate of one bread and one cup. (1 Cor. x.) And Christ • saith (Matt. 26) : Eat ye, this it my body. And, Drink ye, this it my blood. And, I am the living bread which came down from heaven. He that eateth m« thall also live for ever. Not as your fathert did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. He that eateth me thall alto live for ever." John, vi. Ditputations of Archbishop Cranmer at Oxford. Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. HI., page 39, London, 1634. <- The gj-ace which we have by the holy Eucharist doth not begin but con- tinue life. No man therefore receiveth this sacrament before baptism, be- cause no dead thing is capable of nourishment. That which groweth must of n icessity first live. If our bodies did not daily waste, food to restore them were a thing superfluous. And it may be that the grace of baptism would serve to eternal life, were it not that the state of our spiritual being is daily so much hindered and impaired after baptism. In that life therefore where neitiicr body uor soul can decay, our souls shall as little require this sacrament as our bodies corporal nourishment, but as long as the days of our warfare last, during the time that we are both subject to diminution and capable of augmentation in grace, the words of our Lord and Saviour Christ will remain forcible, ' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.' " Hooker. Ecclesiastical Polity, V. 67, 1. "ThiH sacrament declares that union which good Christians partaking thereof have with Christ ; their mystical insertion into Him, by a close dependence upon Him for spiritual life, mercy, grace and salvation ; a con- stant adherence to Him by faith and obedience ; a near conformity to Him in mind and affection ; an inseparable conjunction with Him, by the strictest bonds 0. fidelity, and by the most endearing relations: which things could not more fitly be set out than by the partaking our best and most necessary food ; which huinf; taken in soon booomoHi united to us, assimilated and converted into our suhitanco, thereby renewing our Htrongth, and repairing the decays of our natur"; wherefore ' Ho,' saith our Saviour, ' that eateth My flesh and drinkoth My blood, abidcth in Mo, and I in him ;' and, * The cup of blessing,' saith St. Paul, ' which wo bic-is, is it not the commvinionof the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?' We in the outward autlon partake of the symbols repreventinin; our Saviour's body and blood ; we In the spiritual intention u j - ■ 82 I oomnituiioate of His v „ . , ' ^' ^'-^' London, 1842 i nave elsewhere shewed ftM»- .. -uth Chapter Of St. Johrl^; 7 wl^^^^^ «---. discou^e in the and drinking His blood in the F„ k ! ^ ^'"^ "»«*"* of eatinir Hi« flnl • Except ye eat the flesh of the «!? ' ""^ ^^-^^ *^«refore when He «» -life in ,o„, HeniaLTretl^tfr' '^^"^ «^« ^^^h" ht Who are capable of receiving it. ul\!, '''''°''''' °«««««»r^ to ^I their own benefit, eat the flesh of r . u ' °°°' ^''' spiritually and t and love and thankfulness, and o he/h i J '''' "^'^ ^«--« i* with faith a sincere resolution of living Lll^resfr'""^' «°^ -Pecial ly with those Virtues and^^^rl^lrh"'::?" ^^^^ "^ *« ^'^^e o^r^ts wU^ "ot a mere outward formaJ tv ''"-^ '" **'« «°d. Therefo^ . earnestly insist, but eat gau J' drTl" "^''"^ ^"' «*^-ur there I; " ■"•«-tr:.T'"""-"-*--""-'- ■ Tke P«s«ge occur, i„ v "' '™'' Exhortation, " p„, then we l-TT"' °" ""' ""^''^ "f 'he ' "nddrinkhis blood." '^ '""'"' ""'"""W. of Chriat" i '^*''®*'' *»>o Ji^tinotioB be. fir 1 John ■epare I, and iriat's leath God Ke- the Ido the laws ath he *% tween His flesh and blood, and between eating and drinking, which strongly implies some distinction of ideas, not only in the things received, bat in the acts of receiving. Now this distinction, as to the present passage, is foand in the Eucharist alone, to the institution whereof the necessity here included is previous and preparatory, as were also His predictions of His death. Ev- ery plain reader understands this verse of the Holy Sacrament, and here the necessity of reception in both kinds by the laity, as well as the clergy, is clearly determined. In what follows too, (v. 63,)transubstantiation, or the literal construction of the terms 'flesh and blood,' is as clearly pre- cluded. It is the Spirit that quickeneih, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, both on this and on other occasions, they are spirit, and they are life, and are to be understood spiritually of that life, which is to be fed and maintained by the spiritual nourishment of the soul, pro- vided for it at the expense of My life." Quoted from P. SkeUon, (^1707-1787,; Senilia, 59. It is worthy of observation that Mr. Skelton here suggests reasons for that interpretation of the chapter by some Romanist divines, on which the Bishop of Huron remarks with so much satisfaction ; viz., that being interpreted of the Eucharisty it condemns both the doctrinal error of transub- stantiation, and the 'practical error of withholding the cup from the laity. The same has been observed by otaer divines of our communion. * " What is said of the body may be extended to the blood, by parity of reasoning. Let us, in order to explain 'it, read, in addition to what was read before, John vi., 48-58 ; and compare Heb. x., 5-10. From these two scriptures one may get some idea, how, by eating the sacramental bread, or bread in a sacriflce-feaat, one may be said to eat the body of Christ. Whether John vi. relate] to the Lord's Supper has been disputed. I thiuk Bishop Cleaver proves that it does* as a prophetic intimation; but «-« are sure that many people have so understood it ; and so probably did they who compiled our article. In that chapter something is meant which is not intended to be expressed with perfect clearness. It may, as a prophotiu in- timation, be interpreted by the institution of the sacrnmont, at an eveNC,an(l by a comparison of Christ's reasoning in the sixth ohapter, «hi>ut tho Lord's Supper, with his reasoning to Nicodemus in thi) third, abotil Uaptiiui." Dv. Ihy'a Lectures on DivinH^t, |) ft.. 660-1, Cambridge, 1841. "ii then we rightly iutci|«vi>t the tukt, the assistances uf the Spirit nro directly annexed to the attornment of tho Vt'Vd'a Riippor. Uut the sanctifl- oation of the Spirit suppoRi"* \«idemption or pnrdon; whicb thvrut'oro might •J»o (v\)\a thiit chaplpr bi« (^ovod a boiivtit ouu!ie({uent upiut this ordluanoe. Bn< as these \huo(V mny be more obvlounly and simply iluduced from tho Words af loafatutiou, ftuU tiom tho uaturo of the rit^ ii>olf, 1 ihall not inttit 84 ^i at large upon the argameat, but oontent myself ratheMrith having shown, in this and a former discourse, in opposition to those who have interpreted the eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood to be no more than keep> ing his commandments, that it alluded to something more analogous to the literal sense of the words; in opposition to those, who interpret it only of the thing signified in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that it includes the signs also, without 'tfhich the notion of spiritual manduoation is un- founded, aci the passage both to Jew and Christian inexplicable ; in opposi- tion to those, who consider the Lord's Sapper simply as a remembrance of his death, that it is a commemoration of the sacrifice for sin made by his death, and a symbolical feast upon that sacrifice, and is therefore a pledge and means of communicating to us all the benefits of that sacrifice." Bishop CUaver's Sermons, p. 60, Oxford, 1808. Again, we may surely be permitted to argue from the language of our Communion Service, as to the interpretation of the passage by those who framed that service ; and in it, beyond all doubt, the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ are repeatedly spoken of as the peculiar grace and benefit of that holy ordinance. We are instructed to render " thanks to our heavenly Father, for that He hath given His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy sacrament." We are told that ''if, with a true penitent heart and lively faith, we receive that holy sacrament, then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood." We pray God that, *' we may so eat the flesh of His dear Son, Jesus Christ, and drink His blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body," &c. It would be very hard to maintain that reference is not made in these places to the only passage of holy scripture in which the same terms ore employed. I must, however, notice the Bishop's closing paragraph. It is as follows : . M 1 •' I cannot, therefore, think it sound divinity or good protestantism to teach that in the sixth chapter of St. John our Lord refers to the oral reception of the elements in the sacrament, and not to the spiritual participa- tion of his body and blood by faith; such teaching I must consider ' dangerous in the extreme.'" My Lord, no honest man can possibly affirm that I have taught that the sixth chapter of St. John refers lu ''the oral 85 ^h. to ta- iS re reception of the elements," and not to the spiritual participa- tion of our Lord's body and blood by faith. I believe it to refer to the latter, and that the language is shaped, by the divine wisdom of our blessed Lord, with a view to that great external mean of spiritual participation, which He was about to institute at the close of His earthly ministry. I would observe on one of the Bishop's quotations from the catechisms placed in his hands. It is as follows : " Q. What words of our Lord show this? "A. Our Lord speaks of the spiritual benefits which should certainly flow from eating His flesh and drinking His blood, of which benefits the wicked cannot be thought to partake. 'Whoso eateth my flesh,' &c., John t1., 64, &c." " What words of our Lord show this ?" Show what ? A reference to my former letter will furnish the reply to this question, which indeed may readily be inferred from the answer above quoted. Show that the body and blood of Christ are received bi/ the faithful, not by the wicked ; that the wicked cannot receive ; in proof of which I quote 1 Cor. X., 21, " Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils : ye cannot he partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils," and also the saying of St. Augustine that the wicked eat ^^panem Domini,'' " the bread of the Lord,^' the consecrated element; but not " pa7iem Bominum,'^ '''the bread which is the Lord," the body of Christ. That must be a strange kind of oral reception, for which wickedness incapacitates a man ; a strange kind of oral reception, which is possible only to the faithful. The following extracts from Waterland will, I trust, be thought conclusive as to the legitimacy of the use whjch I made have of the sixth chapter of St. John ; and also as to the correctness of my representation of the opinion of Archbishop Cranmer respecting it : " The sum then of Archbishop Graumor's doctrine on this head is; 1. That John vi. is not to be interpreted of oral manducation in the sacra- < ment, nor of spiritual manducatiou as confined to the Eucharist, but of spir- itual manducatlou at large, in that or any other sacrament, or out of the sacraments. 2, That Hpiritual manducation, in that chapter, means the 86 feeding upon Christ's death and passion, as the price of oar redemption and salvation. 8. That in so feeding we have a spiritual or mystical union with His human nature, and by that with His Oodhead, to which His humanity is joined in an umVy of person. 4. That such spiritual manducation is a pri- vilege belonging to the Eucharist, and therefore John vi. is not foreign to the Eucharist, but has such relation to it as the inward thing signified bears to the outward signs. " To Archbishop Cranmer I may subjoin Peter Martyr, who about ten years after engaged in the same cause, in a large Latin treatise printed A.D., 1562. No man has more clearly shewn, in few words, how far John vi. belongs not to the Euchari'Jt, and how far it does. He considers the general principles there taught as being preparatory to the institution of the Eucharist, which was to come after. Our Lord in that chapter gave inti' mation of spiritual food, with the use and necessity of it. Afterwards in the institution, he added external symbols for the notifying one particular act or instance of spiritual manducation, to make it the more solemn and the more affecting. Therefore John vi., though not directly spoken of in the Eucha- rist, yet is by no means foreign^ but rather looks forward towards it, bears a tacit allusion to it, and serves to reflect light upon it ; for which reason the ancient Fathers are to be comtnended for connecting the account of in- ward grace with the outward symbols, the thing signified with the signs after- wards added, and eo applying the discourse of that chapter to the case of the Eucharist." Waierlaml. Works, vol. IV., page 567, Oxford, 1843. 'J The last three heads, viz. : the Sacraments, Participation in the glorified Humanity of our Lord, and the Application of the Vlth chapter of St. John, are very closely connected, and many of the passages, ranged under one of them, might with propriety have been referred to, some other. I hope that, taken collectively, these authorities may show that I do not hold the erroneous opinions which have been imputed to me, or suggested as underlying my teaching ; but I am very anxious, if possible, on a subject which is so momentous, and which has, unhappily, of late years, been obscured rather than elucidated by bitter controversy, to give more direct and explicit satisfaction to those who naturally feel a strong interest in the teaching of the College, and are desirous to give it their unqualified, yet intelligent, approval. I am glad, therefore, to be able to state, in the words of another, the sum of what I believe and desire to teach respecting the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. I find, in a charge of the Bishop of St. David's, published in 1857, a calm, clear, and 87 s. cautious statement in which I can heartily concur, and of which perhaps I may be permitted, under existing circum- stances, to say that it has met, rather than formed, my own . opinion respecting that sacred rite. The well-known moral and intellectual endowments of the writer, whom I am about to quote, constitute him a most val- uable authority ; yet I do not claim him as such, as it is my purpose to claim no living or recent author of whatever emi- nence ; I siraply wish to set forth, in the admirable language of Dr. Thirlwall, a confession of my own belief on this great question. I have already produced it to my class, in lectur- ing on the Articles, as defining with great precision and with solicitous reverence, the faith to which, as I believe, we are bound, both by holy scripture and by the language of our formularies. I may mention that Bishop Heber, in his life of Jeremy Taylor, prefixed to his edition of his works (pp., ccxxxiii. iv.) appears to take precisely the same view of this question with Bishop Thirlwall, using in some instances the very same expressions. The passage given below occurs, after a temperate and dispassionate examination of the pro- positions of Archdeacon Denison, which the Bishop altogether condemns. It is to this writer that he refers in the opening words of the quotation : " But there is still another topic connected with this controversy to which I'must briefly advert before I quit the subject. The author whose teaching has been condemned would fain represent himself as having been called in question touching the doctrine of the real presence, and as opposed to those who either deny it altogether, or acknowledge it in an incomplete or erroneous sense ; and he pleads this latitude of opinion, which has been al- loweJ, as he thinks, to other ministers of the Church of England, as a ground for claiming the liberty of maintaining his own view 'as the one truth of the doctrine.' It would not seem to follow that, because there is a variety of opinions consistent with the doctrine of the Church, an opinion which differs from all of them must be so too. But it is important to consider how far the doctrine of the real presence is involved in this dispute. "The phrase real presence is foreign to the language of the Church of England, and has been wisely avoided as liable to abuse, and likely to de- ceive or scandalize the simple and ignorant. No minister of our Church is required formally to assert or deny the doctrine of the real presence. But there is a sense in which it may be and constantly has been asserted in per- fect consistency with her authentic teaching, and in which it could not be 88 'r denied without great detriment to the truth. And this sense is in perfect accordanee with the language of scripture, and especially with that of our Lord Himself, both on other occasions and on that which is recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John, when He was speaking, as some have thought, with direct reference, as almost all admit, in a manner applicable to the Eu- charist. When He says, 'lam the vine,' it may be enough to say that He speaks figuratively. But when He says, 'I am the true vine,' this would be hardly a correct, certainly not an adequate explanation of His meaning. It is not simply as much as to say, ' I am like the vine,' but, ' I am in truth, reality, and effect, that of which the natural vine is only a figure and a shadow.' For, by the natural union between the stock and the branches, it represents that far higher and more intimate union which subsists be- tween me and my faithful people. Thus, in this instance, true or real is contradistinguished from natural. So, 'My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven ; that of which the manna was but a sign : not natural, but spiritual food.' So again : ' My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed,' It would not be so, if it was fitted to nourish the body, as natural meat and drink. It is so, because it is nourishment for the soul, spiritual meat and drink. And according to the same analogy, the cate- chism teaches that 'the body '' and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper:' that is, not figu- ratively and unsubstantially, as would be the case if they could be received by the mouth, but really and effectually, so as to impart a solid benefit to the soul. And it is in this sense that so many of our most eminent divines have asserted the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist: real, as possessing a spiritual, life-giving power, for the strengthening and refreshing of the soul, which could not belong to the natural body and blood, considered apart from the whole person of Christ. It would be at variance with this analogy, to speak oiv. real presence of any thing merely natural or neutral, and capable of being received unto condemnation. A thing of this kind would want some other real presence to make it effectual for the de- sired end. As an instrument of a Divine power, the consecrated bread' and wine, though utterly powerless in themselves, are quite adequate to the purpose, and cannot require the addition either of any other substance, or even of any mysterious supernatural virtue. And it is no slight objection to the supposition of such an adjunct, that a stupendous miracle would be wrought without any assignable object. Where there is such a real pres- ence, nothing more can be needed to ensure the fulness of the blessing which the sacrament was designed to convey to all who worthily partake of it. And without such a presence, no preparation could be of any avail. This is a presence which is independent of nearness or distance, and belongs perhaps more properly to time than to space. But with respect to both, we may say that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, that is, in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. And as the consecrated elements are the instrument by which this presence operates in the worthy receiver, it might have been said — innocently, though not wisely — that He is present under the form of the bread and wine ; and the phrase has been allowed to remain in a notice b ' f ' I V '■s \\ dd lb Id r In ■■ 1 1 . ai the end of the first Book of Homilies. But it oannot now be used eithet wisely or innocently by a divine of the Church of England, because it is a phrase which must scandalize or mislead, until it is explained ; and, when explained according to her doctrine, is found to signify something which would have been more properly expressed in different words. Such a presence is, in the highest sense of the word, to the full as real as that which, in the Romish and Lutheran systems, and apparently according to the view of the author whose propositions have been recently condemned, is held to be lodged in the sacramental symbols, though not so as to render them the more certainly effective for any beneficial operation. It is there- fore a mere polemical artifice to allege that one who rejects all those sys- tems is opposed to the doctrine of a real presence in the Eucharist ; and I do not know that there is any other ground for the assertion, that there are ministers of our Church who deny it altogether. But I am not sure that all pay sufficient attention, or attach due importance to this part of the truth. And it would rot be surprising if many, recoiling with just aversion from the innovations v/hich have been lately attempted iu the language, if not in the essential doctrines, of the Church on this head, should have fallen into the opposite extreme, and have lost sight of what I will venture to call the objective reality in the sacrament. It may be that they hold ^ightly, that the simple sign is sufficient as the divinely appointed instrumtit ^ and a suitable frame of mind in the receiver as the requisite conditioi'i, of the benefit to be conveyed ; but that they are apt to overlook the necessity for something beside the instrument and the condition, which is more indispen- sable than either ; namely, the presence, the power, the spiritual agency, by which the instrument ify«ffectually ap 'ed. The practical tendency of this oversight is, to rob the sacrament .3 specific character, to reduce it to a mere form of prayer or mode of ushing ; virtually to contradict the teaching of the Church in her Arti>^ uud to divest the language of her Liturgy of all its propriety aud significance. It is true that all sacred ordi- nances have a common end, and that the efficacy 01' Ul dnpends on their common author. But it does not follow that all are of equal dignity or value. And if there is a point on whioU the witness of scripture, of the purest ecclesiastical tradition, and of our own Church, is more express and uniform than another, it is the peculiar ani transcendant quality of the blessing which this sacrament both represents and exhibits, and conse- quently of the presence by which that blessing is conferred. How this presence differs from that of which we are assured by our Lord's promise, where two or three are gathered together in His name — whether only in degree or in kind— it is beyond the power of human language to define, and of human thought to conceive. It is a subject fit, not for curious specula- tion, but for the exercise of pious meditation and devotional feeling ; and it is one in which there is no danger of ever going beyond the mark, but rather a certainty that the highest flight of contemplation will always fall short of the Divine reality." A Charge, d-c, by the Bishop o/St, David's, pp. 37'43, Londm, 1867. 12 ,."^.. ^^^o v^^..^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11.25 b^lM |2.5 ■^ Uii |2.2 1^ 12.0 us i; 1.4 1.6 Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 41^ I^V^'o 33 WIST MAirt STRUT WnSTIR.N.Y. 14510 (71a) •73-450;t -^y^ ^ lA ^ ^ 90 having thus produced my authorities on the several points on which my teaching has been called in question by the Bishop of Huron, I will conclude with some remarks which I think it of importance to make. And, first, I have given the dates of these authorities. They belong, all but exclusively, to the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, only two of the writers quoted having survived the beginning of the nineteenth. I have given their dates as a matter of general interest; but, I con- fess, chiefly for the purpose of silencing, if possible, the miserable cant of those who would stigmatise the doctrines or opinions, which it has been my duty to defend, as noveliieSj and as novelties of a most objectionable character. They admit, indeed, that they " are aware that the points objected to are not novel, or peculiar to Trinity College;" but why? only because " they hav4 been maintained of late years by a certain class of divines j whose teacy^g has been adverse to the protestantism of the church." My Lord, it is mournful indeed to find men, from whom we have a right to expect at least some acquaintance with their subject, and some degree of candour, pertinaciously committing themselves to state- ments, which can be accounted for only on the hypothesis of disgraceful ignorance or of still more disgraceful dishonesty. A very little information, or a very little love of truth, would prevent the putting forth of such statements ; and, if the former be the antidote required, I hope it may be found in these pages. On the number of my authorities I will observe, that I have made it my object rather to give so many as appeared sufficient for my purpose, than to multiply them further. No doubt a little more time, and access to books which are not here within my reach, would have enabled me to make large additions to them. As to their /orm, I have given them very fully, and with references to the editions from which they are taken. I have a wholesome dread of the word " garbled " in connexion with Quotations, as I believe that there are controversialists I n the in ^tl red ^er. ire ike rith I Uon itt who consider the epithet to be invariably applicable to authorities cited bj an opponent. One necessary consequence of thus giving my authoritiei in full has been the occasional introduction of subordinate matter, not strictly relevant to the subject : I wish it to be distinctly understood, that I quote my authorities timply a» authorities on the main point in questioUf without pledging myself to the approval of all their arguments or modes of expression. I must also advert to a subject on which I touched briefly in my former letter. I expect to hear it said, " How very unnecessary all these discussions," " might not a few modi- fications remove every difficulty ?" My Lord, it is not unnatural that such thoughts should present themselves to the minds of distant and imperfectly informed spectators of this controversy; and I feel that it is due to the Church, to the College, and to myself, to show that I have not been guilty of raising needless points of debate, and that I cannot rightly or reasonably promise to modify my teaching for the future. To show thif* I must take the points separately ; and, I. Respecting what has been quaintly called, by a would- be theologian, " the glorification of the Virgin Mary," vii., the assertion of her instrumentality in the means of human redemption. The question here is, whether "Pearson on the Creed" may be used as a text-book? It will be a fatal day for the College when this question is answered in the negative. So long as it is answered in the affirmative, it is undoubtedly my duty to elucidate, to the best of my ability, the teaching of an author, of whom Bentley said, that "the very dust of his writings was gold." II. Respecting tho perpetual virginity. When I read the Greek Testament with my class, am I to abstain from all comment on St. Matthew i., 25 ? Or am I to state, in spite of my own convictions — in spite of the testimonies which I have adduced — in defiance of the rule which requires us to interpret scripture by scripture — that that verse teaches us that the virginity was not perpetual ? This I can never oon- 93 ient to do ; and, if it be my duty to teach divinity, I hold it to be simply absurd that I should ignore the difference of opinion on the subject. I must still do as I have done, state the existence of that difference of opinion, and give my in- terpretation of the passage, as an interpretation^ and not as a matter of faith. The same must be said of the many passages of Holy Writ, which speak of the brethren of our Lord. Otherwise, vre must be prepared to admit that an Index Expurgatorius. \a to become henceforward the grand specific for the maintenance of evangelical truth, an index which is to include, not only heretical passages from Bishop Pearson, but even texts of Holy Writ, which it is thought to be most dangerous — if not to read — yet, at all events, to understand. We must be prepared to admit that ignorance is henceforth to be regarded as the palladium, on the inviolability of which the existence of our reformed Communion depends. III. Respecting the intercession of saints. In addition to the plea before made, that Pearson, our text-book, is here followed, I may add, that so long as I lecture on the Articles, and in so doing necessarily treat of the Romish error of the invocation of saints, so long must I necessarily refer to the intercession of the departed on our behalf. It cannot be escaped. I must speak of it, either as a probable belief, not contradictory to Holy Scripture ; or as a presumptuous and unwarrantable conceit, dishonourable to the One Mediator between God and man. The latter I will never do, because it is contradictory to my reason and against my conscience ; and my position as a teacher in the Church of England does but add to the impropriety of my doing so, as, in so doing, I should be setting at nought the authorities of her great divines. I must still do, as I have ever done, speak of it as a probabU opinion^ not as a truth revealed to us in Holy Scripture. And, in so doing, I believe that I shall be most surely avoiding that very danger, which the Bishop of Huron regards as immediately consequent upon my teaching. Let a young man be taught to dread and abhor the opinion that departed saints pray for us, even as he dreads and abhors the practice 98 to iS, e e e ot d or it d ut Id I le d, g as |ng led lice of the invocation of saints ; and the natural result will be, that, by giving to the Romanist a very easy victory over him on the former point, you will secure for him an equally easy victory on the latter. You have taught your pupil that the two things stand or fall together ; and, when in controversy, he learns to his dismay, that concerning the intercession of saints, he has neither Holy Scripture nor reason on his side, and that even the great writers of his own communion are against him, he is in the very position which the Bishop of Huron contemplates, and is prepared to make a *^ very easy transition " to that, which he once regarded as the kindred error, but which he is now prepared to accept as the insepar- able truth. The same may be said respecting the opinion of the perpetual virginity. Tell young men that this opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture — that they who hold it cannot be far from regarding the Blessed Virgin with idolatrous reverence, and you are laying a convenient plank for the unwary, by which they may cross a chasm which sound teaching would have made to them impassable. And I would further ask, my Lord, is it our primary duty to oppose Romanism, or to advance the truth ? Do we owe no duty whatever to those whom we believe to " have erred, and to be deceived," and whom we pray God "to bring into the way of truth ? " We are not acting in the spirit of this prayer when we reject or misrepresent truth, because a Romish error has been grafted on it. I believe it to be the duty of all Christians, but in an especial sense the solemn obligation of the Church uf England, solicitously and charit- ably to distinguish between catholic truths and the peculiar errors of Romanism ; between a reasonable or allowable opinion, and the corrupt teaching which lies in juxta-position with it ; and thus to neglect no means of disabusing deceived minds, und of winning those who are blinded by prejudice. 1 fear that some, wiiu pride themselves on their zealous opposition to the errors of the Church of Rome, will have much to answer for in respect of their conduct towards the members of that communion. Believing Romanists to be involved in fatal delusions, they yet do much to confirm them 94 ■■■I in those delusions ; by refusing to distinguish between the Romish error and the catholic verity or probable opinion with which it is associated, and from which it often derives, in the main, its hold upon the understanding or the affections. rV. Respecting remission of sins, I must teach as I have ever done. Did I not believe as I do, I trust that I should not be still consenting to the act of past years, when I knelt before the Bishop and received, in the solemn words of our Ordinal, authority to exQcute the office of a priest in the church of God. What mean these words, or are they " idle" words : " Whose sins thou dost forgive^ they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained?'* My Lord, I have no wish to use language unduly severe, but I must be allowed to say that I cannot but regard men as labouring under a strange infatuation, when they make it matter of grave charge against a clergyman of the Church of England, that he does not adopt a scheme of doctrine, which, in his honest conviction, reduces the ministerial authority, thus solemnly bestowed, to a nullity ; and renders an acqui- escence in the form, by which the Church professes to convey that authority, a mockery of the Most High. Are we to be required, as a matter of conscience, thus to bow ourselves down in the house, not of Rimmon, but of God ; and to be branded as faithless to the most cacred obligations, if we will not recklessly assume that " the Lord " will " pardon us in this thing?" Are we to be required again, as a matter of con- to attach a non-natural sense to that r.rticle of our which we as ministers, and the people with us. science, Creed, solemnly confess whenever our Communion Service is read, *' I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins ?" V. On the sacraments I believe my doctrine to be that of Holy Scripture and of the Church of England, and accord- ingly the holding and the teaching of it to be binding upon me both as a Christian, and as a churchman. The Bishop of Huron has said nothing directly in condemnation of my teaching respecting the grace of baptism, but he has quoted the following remark of a correspondent : 9^ " He always spoka of baptismal regeneration as if all dlTines received the dootrine in its strongest sense, without ever hinting that there was a far more etangelioal view of it taken by many eminent divines of our Church" If I could not accept the teaching of the Baptismal Service and of the Catechism in its plain and ohvious sense, I wuuld not consent for another day to discharge my office as a minister of the Church of England. What I thus steadfastly believe I teach to youths just entering college, and not designed, in many instances, for holy orders; in the theological class, the students are fully informed of other vioif s ; but I admit thp>i,t I do not, even then, characterise those views as '^ far more evangelical " than that which I believe to be the truth. Respecting the other sacrament, I think it right to say that I am persuaded that this great mystery is exposed to danger, not only from those who would explain it away^ but also from those who would unduly explain it. Their zeal for a high and heavenly truth does, as I think, realty, place that truth in jeopardy ; by requiring a belief more or less explicit, as to the mode in which a divine gift is communicated, and as to circumstances contingent on its communication. If men suffer themselves to press such demands, even with the purest motives, they may but too readily resign, as a prey to superstition or to infidelity, those sacred verities which can be kept inviolate only under the guardianship of reverence and humility. My Lord, I have travelled, carefully and faithfully, I trust, over this painful ground. My former letter, which was honoured by the approval of the Corporation, and was pub- lished by their order, contemplated the publication of the letter which I am now closing, and I therefore regard it as published by authority^ though the Corporation are in no way committed to its details. I have mentioned this for the purpose of declaring that, except on the requisition of the Corporation, I shall publish nothing further, under whatever provocation. An appeal, probably only too successful, has been made to ignorance, to passion, and to prejudice; a scandal has been occasioned, from the bitbOr results of which 96 the Church in this province will probably suffer for years to come ; and, havi'^g done what I can, under the direction of my superiors, to (Counteract the mischief, I will not incur the responsibility of aggravating it, by engaging in personal and unauthorised controversy. I deeply regret the occasion which has called forth these letters, but my regret would be far more keen, if I were compelled to accuse myself of having provoked the attack which has been made, by the inculcation of extreme opinions, or by thoughtless and unguarded conduct. I cannot charge myself with having done so. I trust that I have not Wen wholly unmindful of those higher and more sacred obligations under which I lie to reverent caution in dealing with sacred truth ; at all events I can assure your Lordship, that I would not lightly have hazarded, by act or word, the interruption of your own tranquillity, o^ have ventured wantonly to make any addition to the weight of those cares which devolve upon you both in your official and in your private capacity. I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's obliged and faithful Servant, GEORGE WHITAKER. a ( •OWraU AMD KUn, PBIMTBM, iURO 8TBUT, TORONTO. mmmm^^mmmm mmmmm wmmm ADDENDA. ''■\ s d d D e D I Under the head of " Intereetiion of Samtt" (p. 58,) may be added the following testimonies: The apology for the eonfuiion ofAugtburg, ad Art. XZl., \Z-4^p, 201. " De Sanctis etsi conoedimus, quod siont yivi orant pro eoolesift nniTersi in genere, ita in coalis orant pro ecolesi& in genere. Porro ut mazime pro eoclesi& orent sancti, tamen non seqnitur, quod sint inyocsndi." *< Although we grant concerning the saints, that as they pray when liying for the universal church in general, so in heaven they pray for the ehnroh in general. Moreover, however much the saints pray for the church, yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked." " Quantum ad sanotos attinet, qui, came mortui, in Christo vivunt, si quam illis orationem attribuimus, ne iis qi^dam ipsis somniemua aliam esse rogandi Dei viam, quam Christum, qui solus via est : aut alio nomine Deo esse acoeptas eorum preces." " So far as concerns the sidnts, who, dead in the flesh, live in Christ, if we attribute any prayer to them, let us not dream that even for them there is any other way of making request to God, than Christ, who only is the way ; or that their prayers are accepted with Ood in any other name." Joan. Calvin. Inttitutionum Lib. 111., cap. 20, ttct. 21. Workn, vol. iX., p. 282, Amlelodami, 1667. Calvin here speaks of prayer on the part of the saints at rest as being at all events poatible ; and he mentions certain conditions, under which it would be, in no sense, an invasion of the one mediatorship, but rather a most striking recognition of it. The context shows clearly that he is speak- ing of intercessory prayer, and accordingly we find, in the margin, these words : "De sanctorum in coelis cum Christo viventium interceuione." Under the head of the "Sacraments," (p. 69,) may be added the following testimonies : "Das man aber die Ordination der Priester in die zal der Sacramento setzet, gefallt mir ser wol." "That the ordination of priests should be placed in the number of the sacraments, gives me entire satisfaction." Melancthon. Instruction against the Anabaptists, p. 294. " Sacramenta duo instituta, quibus nunc Christiana ecclesia utitur, Baptismus et Coena Domini. Loquor antem de iis quse in usnm totius ecolesies sunt instituta. Nam impositionem manuum, qu& eoolesisB ministri in suum munus initiantur, ut non invitus patior vocari sacramentum, ita inter ordinaria sacramenta non numero." "Two sacraments were insti- tuted, which the Christian Church now observes. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. I speak, however, of those which have been instituted for the observance of the whole church. For th? imposition of hands, whereby the ministers of the church are initiated into their ofiSoe, while 1 readily allow it to be called a sacrament, I yet reckon not among the ordinary sacraments." Joan. Calvin. Instit. IV,, 14, 920. (k>era, vol. IX., p. 847, Amttelodami, 1667.