IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) A 1.0 I.I 4.0 1^ 1^ 2.0 I 1.8 L25 1 1.4 1.6 *< 6" ► V 71 Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716)872-4503 ^ s^ \ ^\ LV ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIK Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa The tot» The Institute has attempted to obtain the bast original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. HTT Coloured covers/ VlJ Couvertura de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D a D D D D Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restauria at/ou pelliculAe I — I Cover title missing/ Ls titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gtographiquas en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noiral |~n Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli* avac d'autbes documents Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certainee pages blanches ajoutAes lors d'une restauration apparaissant dans le texte. mais, lorsqua cala itait posaible. ces pages n'ont pas M filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentairas supplAmentaires: L'Institut a microfilme le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a AtA possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-itre uniques du point de vue bibliographiqua, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithoda normale de fllmage sont indiqute ci-dessous. r~n Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagias [~~] Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurAes et/ou pelliculies The posi of tl film Orig begi the slor othi first sion oril 0^: Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages decolories. tacheties ou piqutos □Pages detached/ Pages ditachies r^Kshowthrough/ LLJ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualiti inigaie de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprand du matiriei suppl4mentaira □ Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible n The shal TIN whi Mai diff enti beg righ reqi mel Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have b^en refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont Ati filmtes A nouveau de fa^on i obtanir la mailieure imege possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: L'exemplaire filmi f ut reproduit grAce A la ginirosit* de: Archives of Ontario Library Archives of Ontario Library The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping 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 back 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 V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont tti reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e sont filmis en commenqant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commen^ant par la premi6re 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 apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symboie -^> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent 6tre filmfo d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film6 d partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants llSlustrent la m^thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 \2> LETTERS AND PAPERS PUBMPIIKD TN isro, IN REFERENCE TOTHK CTTARaES BROUGHT BY THE LORD BTSITOP OF HURON, AGAINST THE THEOLOCilCAL TEACHING OP ■i... TRINITY COLLEGE, TORONTO. ROWSELL & ELLIS, PRINTERS, KING STREET. 18G2. % ^ IN LO LETTERS AND PAPERS I'UnMSHKD IN 18H0, IN REFERENCE TO THE CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE LORD BISHOP OF HURON, AOAIMST THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING or TRINITY COLLEGE, TORONTO. ROWSELL & ELLIS, PRINTERS, KING STREET, 1862. MINUTE OF CORPORATION OF JUNE 20th, 1860. Trinity CoLLEaB, June 29, 1860. The Corporation of Trinity College, Toronto, have observ- ed, in the public prints, a report of the proceedings of the Synod of the Diocese of Huron, on Wednesday, June 20th, containing a statement made by the Lord Bishop of Huron with reference to Trinity College ; and they have ascertain- ed from the testimony of persons present at the Synod that this report, so far as the language attributed to the Bishop is concerned, is substantially correct. That statement having been made, by a person occupying the prominent position of the Bishop of Huron, and in so public a manner, ex cathedrd as it were, in an open Synod of the Clergy and Laity of his Diocese, requires to be met, on the part of the Corporation, by a statement no less public. I. His Lordship objects to the teaching of Trinity College, and declares that, if he had a son to educate, it would be the last place to which he would send him. II. He states also that there is no power vested in the hands of any of the bishops to interfere in the teachings of the College, "^his," he says, "was not the case formerly, but a late statute has altered it. In the present state of things the supreme power is vested in the Chancellor, and, so long as such is the case, I cannot give it my support." The Corporation address themselves, in the first instance, to the latter statement : The "late statute," to which the Bishop of Huron refers, was recommended by a Committee to the Corporation, and received by them, as a part of the report of the Committee, on the 12th of February, 1859. It was, ^vith the rest of the report, forthwith transmitted to the Bishop of Huron. He was invited, before the next meeting of the Corporation for the adoption of the report, to confer privately with the IV Bishop of Toronto, in order to remove any possible miscon- ception. He (lid so confer. On the 24th of February, 1859, he accompanied the Bishop of Toronto to a meeting of the Corporation. The Bishop of Toronto informed the meeting that the Bishop of Huron and himself were agreed on the report of the Committee, the Bishop of Huron having only one or two unimportant amendments to suggest. These amendments were agreed to, and the report was unanimously adopted, in the presence of the Bishop of Huron, his veto being sufficient to have provented the adop- tion of any portion of it. From that day to this the Bishop of Huron has ncvor in- timated to the Corporation his dissatisfaction with any Statute enacted by the adoption of that report. It appears therefore that, without reference to the expe- diency of the existing regulations, the Bishop of Huron has no claim whatever to allege Statutes which he deliberately sanctioned, and against which he has since entered no kind of protest, as a ground for discountenancing the College. But again the Bishop misstates the case as to the effect of those Statutes. He says that " the 'e is no power vested in the hands of any of the Bishops to interfere in the teachings of the College." He might have said that the Bishops possess no separate or exclusive power of so interfering. But they do possess, in oomraon with other memj)er3 of the Cor- poration, a right ui liiterference : while their sacred office would ever give them, especially on questions relating to reli- gious truth or moral conduct, a powerful influence with the rest of the body. The Bishop adds, "In the present state of things, the supreme power is vested in the Chancellor." This is not the case. The only Statute on which the Bishop's assertion can bo based is the following : " No proposition for the removal of a Provost or Professor may be submitted to the Corporation except through the Chancellor, and then only on a written requisition, addressed to him by not less than five members of the Corporation." This statute gives the Chancellor no real power at all, but merely provides that an e miscon- ^y, 1859, of the meeting on the ing only port was ishop of he adop- nevoi* in- fith any he expe- uron has iberately no kind ollege. ! effect of rested in eachings Bishops ng. But the Cor- sd office ; to reli- Vfith the igs, the s is not ssertion for the to the en only ss than t^es the that an important act should be done in a solemn manner, and through a fitting officer. In reference to the Bishop's first statement as to the teaching of the College, accompanied by the emphatic dec- laration that Trinity College is the last place to which he would send a son, the Corporation observe that the charge against the teaching is most vague, and that the ordinary rules of morality, to say nothing of Christian charity, require that any man, who advances such a cliargo, should, under any circumsUnccs, be prepared to substantiate it in detail. Much more must this bo looked for in the instance of a Christian Bishop, addressing his Clergy and Laity in Synod. But further, the Bishop is by law a member of the Cor- poration, and he cannot escape the responsibility which, in that character, rests upon him. Ho has never, then, in his place in the Corporation, brought forward even the vague charge which he has hazarded in the meeting of his Synod, far less \vu he attempted to substantiate it. Nay, more than this, he has refused to do so, when urged by the Bishop of Toronto to adopt this " wiser and more honourable course." And his refusal was based on this ground, that he could not expect to effect a change in the teaching of the University. (Signed) JOHN TORONTO, President. CHARLES MAGRATH, Bursar and Secretary. THE BISHOP OF HURON'S FIRST LETTER. I'f ' L PASTORAL. To TUB Cleuoy and Laity op the Diocese or Huron. Mt/ Reverend Brethren and Brethren. — A document, emanating from the Corporation of Trinity College, Toronto, has appeared in the extra of the Ucclesiastical vfazette, and has been circulated amongst the Clergy and Laity of this diocese. This document contains so many mis-statements concerning matters in which I am concerned, that I feel myself called upon to address you, and to state the circum- stances therein referred to, as they really did occur. I shall treat the subjects mentioned in this document in the same order in which they are discussed in the extra. I am sorry that I am thus placed under the necessity of pub- licly contradicting statements put forth by a body of such high respectability as the Corporation of Trinity College ; but no other course remains to me ; justice to myself and a regard for the interests of truth compel mo to do so. With reference to the fourth paragraph of the extra, the following statement of what really did occur, previous to, and at the meeting of the 24th of February, 1859, will show how careless the Corporation of Trinity College has been in preparing the document to which I refer. I received from the Bursar of Trinity College a circular, informing me that a meeting of the Corporation would be held on the 24th of February, at which important measures would be brought forward j but no report of resolutions of committee was transmitted to mc, and I had no intimation what these measures were. I had never attended any meetings at Trinity College up to that time. I went to To- ronto, and on the morning of the 24th of February, being desirous to know what the important business was which was to be brought before the meeting, I inquired of the Rev. vu :r. H. J. Orasett what the business vras. He shewed me a paper, on which \iere some resolutions ; but the ttatutef which tvaa afterwards passed at the meeting, was not one of them. I accompanied, not the Bishop, but Mr. Grasett to the College ; I saw the Bishop of Toronto only for a few minutes that morning, and when the statute referred to in the extra was read by the Provost, I objected to it, and it will be remembered by the gentlemen who were present that what I objected to was that when a requisition for the re- moval of a Provost or Professor was signed by five members of the Corporation, and placed in the hands of the Chan- cellor, the option was left to him of bringing the complaint before the Corporation or not, as he thought fit. 1 urged that when a requisition thus signed was presented to the Chancellor, it should be imperative on him to bring it before the governing body. I even suggested that the number of signatures necessary to the requisition should be increased to ten ; but that the Chancellor ought not to have the power of refusing to bring the requisition before the Corporation when thus placed in his hands. I have not, therefore, misstated the effect of those statutes, as is as- serted ; but the writer of the extra has kept out of view that provision of them to which I have objected. All the members of the Corporation then present united in the desire to pass the statute, and after stating my objections I ceased to oppose. I might have pronounced my veto on the measure ; but under the circumstances, I did not think it advisable to do so. I was then, for tbe first time, at a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity College. I had never assisted the institution in any way. I was surrounded by gentlemen who had largely contributed to the funds of the University. They, together with the Bishop of Toronto, who had done so much, and laboured so long and so ener- getically to establish Trinity College, were desirous that the statute should pass ; I therefore did not think it wise to use the power which I possessed, to veto their wish con- cerning this statute. Had I done so, I fear the epithets which would have been lavished upon me would not have Vlll been more chaste, gentle or courteous than those which members of the Corporation of Trinity College — a Church institution — have allowed themselves to employ concerning a Bishop, when speaking of me in public and in private. It is much to be regretted that when the Corporation of Trinity College, in their zeal, not to defend themselves, but, to assail me, resolved to come before the public, they were not more careful as to the statements which they hazarded. They appear to have acted upon the principle, that a man may, to defend himself, employ any means to weaken or wound his adversary. This principle holds good with those who rely for victory on physical strength. But the use of such an expedient in literary warfare, more particularly where religion is concerned, has ever been justly regarded as unworthy of the scholar and the gentleman. A man does not defend himself, or strengthen his position, by endeavor- ing to inflict a wound on the reputation of his opponent. Such conduct generally recoils, with crushing force, upon the head of him who has been guilty of it. I will now direct attention to the statement which I made at the meeting of the Synod of my diocese. A clerical member of the Synod gave notice of a motion concerning Trinity College. I told this gentleman before he proponed his motion, that 1 was opposed to ity and should he against him. He persevered in bringing it before the Synod, and in a long speech, in which he uttered the most glowing encomiums on Trinity College, moved its adoption, and was seconded by a friend. When the resolution was thus before the Synod, a lay delegate stood up, and requested me to give my opinion on the subject of the resolution. This I did as nearly as I can remember in the following words : — " Being called upon by a member of the Synod to give my opinioa upon the question now before the meeting, I shall do so fully and faithfully, as it is not my wish to give an opinion by halves upon so important a subject. I cannot agree with the mover of the resolution in the exaggerated eulogium which he has pronounced on Trinity College. I have taken every pains for two years to inform myself con- k ose which -a Church oncerning rivate. oration of elves, but, they were hazarded, lat a man veaken or mth those he use of articularly r regarded . man does endeavor- opponent, upon rce. ch I made A. clerical oncerning proposed e against jrnod, and b glowing , and was us before }d me to . This I words ; — > give my ) I shall 3 give an [ cannot ggerated liege. I self con- cerning the teaching of the University, and I cannot ap- prove of it. I think it dangerous to the young men edu- cated there, more particularly if they are educated for the Ministry. I could not comply with the request contained in the resolution, for I should thereby encourage parties to send their sons to the College, and I would not for any considera- tion send a son of mine to the institution. Nor do I see any prospect of effecting a change in the teaching of ohe Uni- versity, as by a recent statute the Chancellor is interposed between the Professors and the Corporation, and power is given to suppress any complaint against a Provost or Pro- fessor, even if preferred by all the Bishops in the Corpora- tion.'' What I intend to say in this letter concerning this statement will bo contained in the remarks which I am about to make on the contents of the last paragraph of the extra. A passage from a letter of the Bishop of Toronto to me, written in April last, when we had a correspondence on the subject of Trinity College, is quoted, and it is added, " That my refusal to adopt what his Lordship called the wiser and more honourable course, was based on this ground, that I could not expect to effect a change in the teaching of the University." I never stated any such ground for my re- fusal. To prove this I have only to quote the passage from my letter in which I replied to the Bishop of Toronto. The passage is as follows : — " You say that in early life you adopted the rule, never, if possible, to allow an opportunity of doing good to pass unimproved ; all who are acquainted with the history of your life will acknowledge that few men have more fully acted upon this rule. But there is another rule, having Divine sanction, which I feel assured you would desire to observe, and which must regulate my conduct towards Trinity College ; it is, * Abstain from all appear- ance of evil.' I feel that I am bound to act up tc this rule, and as / cannot in my soul approve of the teaching of Trinity College^ I believe that my appearing to sanction it, would be a positive evil, and would expose me to the con- demnation, which the Apostle says is the just portion of those who say, * Let us do evil that good may come.' " The 2b il I i correspondence from which I have quoted, took place in April last. From the above extract it will be seen that though I did not, in my place in the Corporation, bring forward a charge against the teaching of the University ; yet I made the charge in the most solemn form in which I could put it to the President of the Corporation, and as I received no answer to my letter, I concluded either that the President was indifferent as to what opinion I might entertain of the teaching of Trinity College, or that he concurred in the view which I expressed in the same letter, " that it was a wiser course for me to stand aloof from the University, than by a public protest to exhibit the melancholy picture of a house divided against itself." I should not even, when called upon by a member of my Synod, have given expression to the opinion which I had formed of Trinity College had I not previously in the most pointed and solemn manner, given expression to the same opinion to the President of that institution. In my opinion, this was the time for the Corporation of Trinity College to have applied to me to state what was the teaching to which I objected. It would have been a much more wise and 'honourable course, when the charge was thus made to the head of the institution, to have enquired into it than to wait in silence until I had preferred the same charge, in compliance with a request made to me by a moraber of my Synod, and then to publish a document occupied in the discussion of a comparatively unimportant statute, and cal- culated to divert public attention from the important subject, namely, the dangerous teaching of Trinity College. I do not hold myself responsible to any man for the opinions which I entertain. But, as I have in the present instance when appealed to by a member of my Synod, ex- pressed my opinion of Trinity College, I am prepared to sub- mit the grounds upon which I have formed that opinion to any of my clergy, or of the laity of my diocese who may de- sire it. I am in possession of ample information upon tho subject, which I am ready to impart to those for whose satis- faction and guidance the opinion was expressed. ;-\.. 3Ci Amongst other documents I have in my possession a man- iscript known in Trinity College by the name of " The Pro- vost's Catechism;" it consists of 741 questions with answers. [t is placed in the hands of every student entering the Uni- irersity, and all are expected to learn it. Independently of the fact, that such a mode of dealing with men is unheard of lin any University at home, I consider the teaching of this catechism dangerous in the highest degree; the views put forth are unsound and un-Protestant. The explanations of IScripture are one-sided ; the whole thing is calculated to in- [doctrinate the youths educated at the institution with the iriews of the author of " the Catechism," and to prepare them Ito propagate the views amongst the members of our commu- Inion throughout the country. An institution which adopts [such an expedient I cannot regard as safe. The minds of [young men, which are, for three or four years, forced into this [mould will not, for a long time, if ever, regain that liberty land independence of thought which are indispensable to those [who are to minister the Word of Life to intelligent £^nd rea- jsoning men. Let this Catechism be no longer kept in manuscript, but )ublished and circulated as the text book of the University [of Trinity College ; and I will venture to predict that the [same conclusion at which I have arrived will be expressed by many, namely, that the teaching of this Catechism is danger- ! ous in the extreme. I have been induced, my Reverend Brethren and Brethren, to address you upon this subject because of the honoured name which is aflfixed to tho document I have been consider- ing ; had it borne any other signature I should have allowed it to pass in silence. But such is the respect which I enter- tain towards the President of Trinity College Corporation, that nothing can ever weaken the feelings of veneration with which I regard him. We know that the highest faculties and the most exalted mental powers succumb to time, and if His Lordship is not now what he once was ; if his memory does not faithfully record events as in years past, allowance should be made for this by his friends, and those who aot Xll with him and for him should be careful not to lead him to lend his name to any proceeding unworthy of the position he 1 has so long filled with honour, and calculated, in the evening of his days, to bring a cloud over the high reputation he has so nobly won. I am, my Reverend Brethren and Brethren, with earnest prayer that God's Spirit may be poured out upon us to guide us into all truth. Your faithful Friend and Pastor, BENJ. HURON. London, July 21, 1860. I I V I 1 ;^ ' r: To THE Editor op the Globe. Sir, — In your issue of yesterday there appears a letter addressed by the Bishop of Huron to the clergy and laity of his diocese. To this document, as a whole, it is neither my duty nor my wish to reply ; but it contains statements affecting myself which seem to demand an immediate con- tradiction. I will merely state the facts of the case, leav- ing the readers of the Bishop's letter to compare my state- ment with his. It is my duty to lecture the students of the first year on the Catechism of the Church of England. For this pur- pose I have compiled a manuscript which I read and explain to the class. The students are expected to take notes of the lecture, and to answer questions on the next day of attend- ance. In order to save time and to observe due method in my questioning) I have prepared, for ray own use, a book of questions, omitting or adding questions at my discretion when I use it. The only written result of my lectures which I require or wish, is a summary of them in the note- books of the students. The contents of these books I never see, nor can I hold myself responsible for them. I am, however, given to understand that it is the practice of some of the students to write down the questions which are addressed to them, and to reduce their notes into the form Xlll of answers to these questions. This practice I disapprove, and it is well known that I do not consider it to be a legiti- mate mode of registering the information given in the lec- tures. Some years ago I consented, more than once, to place my book of questions in the hands of students, on their plea that it Avould assist them to complete or correct their notes. I know also that note-books have passed from hand to hand in the college, but so far from encouraging this, I have urged young men to trust, if not exclusively, at all events, mainly to their own recollection and record of what they hear. My wish is further, that in replying to my questions, the students should give, in their own lan- guage, for the most part, the substance of what they have been taught. Of course there are instances in which sub- stantial accuracy can be secured only by keeping close to the exact terms in which the instruction was conveyed. 1 beg, therefore, to observe that no manuscript known by the name of " The Provost's Catechism," or by any other name, is placed in the hands of any student entering the University, far less is any student expected to learn it. I regret that the Bishop should have put forth these state- ments, when either his position as a member of the corpora- tion or his personal acquaintance with myself gave him full opportunity of ascertaining, without difficulty and without misunderstanding, the mode in which any department of my teaching is conducted. I regret it still more, because I happen to know that a Professor of the College pointed out to the Bishop, within the last fortnight or three weeks, that ho was sadly mistaken on this very point. While, however, I do not hold myself responsible for the teaching contained in manuscripts which I have never seen, I feel that I am fully responsible for the teaching contained in my own. This, if necessary, will be published in full. Except for the purpose of disabusing the minds of the Bishop and others interested in the question, I should not for a moment think of publishing it ; as I am happy to say that it is simply a compilation, abbreviated for the most part from the works of approved authors, which are too diffuse ■ ' ( nil XIV to use as elementary text-books. I am confident, however, that any well instructed Christian man must strongly ap- prove the manuscript as a whole, and I imagine that the Bishop of Huron would admit that his own disapproval is the exception not the rule. It would, therefore, be far better that the Bishop should fully and frankly state what his objections arc, and if he should do so, I promise as full and frank a reply ; for I entirely concur in your opinion that the controversy will not and cannot rest where it is. I am. Sir, Your obedient servant, GEORGE WHITAKER, Provost of Trinity College. Trinity College, July 28, 1860. MINUTE OF CORPORATION OF AUGUST 8th, 1860. At a meeting of the corporation of Trinity College, held on Wednesday, August 8th, 1860, (present :) The Hon. and Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Tor- onto. The Hon. Sir Sir John Beverley Robinson, Bart., Chan- cellor of the University. The Rev. The Provost of Trinity College. Professor Bovell, M.D. The Ven. A. N. Bethune, D.D., D.C.L., Archdeacon of York. .^ The Hon. G. W. Allan. Lewis Moffatt, Esq. The Hon. Mr. Vice-Chancellor Spragge. James M. Strachan, Esq. The Hon. Sir Allan Napier MacNab, Bart. Samuel Bickerton Harman, B.C.L. The Hon. John Hillyard Cameron, D.C.L. XV The Rev. T. B. Fuller, D.D., D.C.L. The Rev. S. Givins. The follo^Ying minute vras unanimously adopted. The Corporation of Trinity College have had their atten- tion directed to a Pastoral, addressed by the Lord Bishop of Huron, to the clergy and laity of his Diocese, in reply to a statement put forth by them, bearing date June 29th, 1860. In this pastoral the Bishop of Huron asserts that the Corporation have made " many mis-statements" in the doc- ument put forth by them. He first says, " no report of resolutions of committee was transmitted to me," intending, as it would seem, to impugn the assertion of the Corporation that the statute, to which the Bishop of Huron publicly objected in his Synod, was transmitted to him " with the rest of the report of the com- mittee." The Corporation see no cause to retract their assertion that this report was transmitted to the Bishop of Huron. Not only was it the avowed determination of the Corporation to send the document to his Lordship, but the Corporation are satisfied that it was sent; although they admit that the transmission of the document does not neces- sarily imply its reception by his Lordship, if indeed this be the fact which he intends to deny, when he says that "no report of resolutions of committee was transmitted to him." The simple question is, did the Bishop of Huron, or did he not, receive some days before the meeting, a paper contain- ing a report of the committee on the statutes which were proposed and adopted at the meeting ? If not, where did he procure the copy which ho used at the meeting of the Corporation ? The Corporation put this enquiry deliber- ately and advisedly. The Bishop of Huron next states that, being thus in the dark as to the important business which was to be transacted, and being naturally anxious to be informed on so grave a subject, he " enquired of the Rev. H. J. Grasett what the business was." The official summons from the Bursar was, according to the Bishop's statement, the only invitation which he received to be present at Toronto, on the 24th of 1 XYl I . X\ •' ' !S February, He has evidently overlooked the following let- ter addresed to him, on the 18th, by the Bishop of Tor- onto : (Copy.) Toronto, 18th February, 1859. My Deau Loud, We have been attempting for some time to make such modifications in the rules and regulations for the govern- ment of Trinity College, as your Lordship's accession to a share in the management would seem to require. But the diflSculty of getting a full meeting of the Corporation owing to the frequent absence of the Chancellor, Sir John Bever- ley Robinson, and the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron, has occasioned unavoidable delay. Wo have now, however, agreed to a draft of the few changes that are thought necessary, and we propose to assemble in the Council Chamber of Trinity, on Thursday, the 24th instant, at three o'clock, p. m., for their final con- sideration in view to their adoption. In requesting your Lordship to take your place in the Corporation on this occasion, 1 may truthfully observe that Trinity College is, and was from the first, intended by all parties favourable to its establishment, to be the Church University of the Province of Upper Canada.. Hence the provision in the charter, enabling the Bishops to meet for the management of its concerns, on the footing of perfect equality. To secure this important object, we obtained the munifi- cent patronage of the S. P. G., a permanent endow- ment, and frequer.t pecuniary donations. To the same cause we owe likewise the liberal grants of the S. P. C. K., and the cordial support of the members of our beloved Church, not only in England, but likewise throughout the Province and in the United States. I still hope to see the three Bishops in their seats as heads and conservators of the institution, and working cordially together in promoting its effectiveness, and extending its blessings through the colony. xni If not inconvenient to your Lordship I would respectfully iggest that it might be of advantage for us to meet the Jhancellor, Sir John B. Robinson, Bart.-, and the Hon. l^ohn Hillyard Cameron, in his office, at ten or eleven ['clock, a.m., on Thursday, the 24th, the day of meeting, to ilk over the business to come before the Corporation in [he afternoon, and should any amendments occur, they may Itill be adopted, and thus secure a pleasant unity in our pro- ^edings. I remain, My dear Lord, Yours faithfully, JOHN TORONTO. Che Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Huron. Of this letter his Lordship says nothing ; yet, strange to bay, on arriving in Toronto, he acted upon it. Ho did, at (the time appointed, presont himself at Mr. Cameron's office, land thence go to the residence of the Bishop of Toronto. lAfter consulting with him, ho returned to Mr. Cameron, and [informed him that, having seen the Bishop of Toronto, he [had agreed with him respecting the report of the committee on statutes, except in a few unimportant particulars, which he thought would create no difficulty at the meeting. The Corporation cannot conceive that this understanding j with the Bishop of Toronto could have been arrived at, in the absence of any written document in the hand of either party, or at a casual meeting which might properly bo described in the terms which the Bishop of Huron employs when he says : " I saw the Bishop of Toronto only for a few minutes that morning." The Bishop of Huron next demurs to the assertion thai " he accompanied the Bishop of Toronto to the meeting of the Corporation." If these words necessarily imply more than that the Bishops presented themselves to the meeting together, the Corporation willingly withdrew them, together with any imputation which the Bishop of Huvon may gup« pose them to convey. 2o ' ! ill I I \ I m xvni At the opening of the business of the meeting the Bishop of Toronto spoke to this oftect : " I am happy to inform the gentlemen present that the Bishop of Huron and myself are of one mind respecting the statutes now to be proposed for adoption ; the Bishop has one or two unimportant amendments to suggest, which I trust the Corporation will adopt." The Bishop of Huron sat by and assented to this statement. The Corporation consider it impossible that, if some new statute, of which the Bishop of Huron had never heard, had been brought forward for adoption, and brought forward as forming a part of the body of the statutes respecting which he had consulted with the Bishop of Tor- onto, (and in this way they affirm that it must have been brought forward, if it was brought forward at all,) he should not have uttered one single syllable of remonstrance or sur- prise. As for the opposition offered to the Statutes at the time, not as introduced by surprise, but on its proper merits, the recollection of all present would shew that the Bishop of Huron took no exception against the vesting of a discre- tionary power in the Chancellor, but merely offered some suggestions respecting details, which he by no means pressed ; and that he certainly left on the minds of all present an impression as to his feeling respecting the sta- tute, directly opposed to that which his pastoral letter would convey. The Corporation would desire to make every reasonable allowance for the imperfect recollection of circumstances long past of which no written record remains, but they owe it to themselves to declare that they see no reason to retract any assertion which they have put forth, and that they believe that if the Bishop of Huron had fairly availed him- self of the proper means of re-calling the occurrences of that time, he could not have impugned their assertions as ho has thought proper to do. The Corporation, however, proceed to notice one or two statements of the Bishop of Huron which they confess have greatly surprised them, and though in any personal contro- lix irorsy, they would gladly have foroborno to point out so par- ticularly, as they will now proceed to do, the just grounds )f their surprise ; yet in vindicating an important institu- tion, in which the Church of England has a deep interest, from a very injurious attack, which they feel to have been lightly and inconsiderately made, they cannot properly refrain. The Bishop of Huron quotes from the statement of the Corporation the following words : *' And his refusal (to )ring forward in his place in the Corporation his charge jagainst the teaching of the College) was based on this [ground, that ho could not expect to effect a change in the Iteaching of the University ;" and he adds, " I never stated lany such ground for my refusal. To prove this I have only Ito quote the passage from my letter in which I replied to Ithe Bishop of Toronto. The passage is as follows : ' You say that in early life you adopted the rule, never, if possible to allow an opportunity of doing good to pass unimproved ; all who are acquainted with the history of your life will acknowledge that few men have more fully acted upon this rule. But there is another rule having divine sanction, which I feci assured you would desire to observe, and which [ must regulate my conduct towards Trinity College ; it is, * Abstain from all appearance of evil.' I feel that I am bound to act up to this rule, and as I cannot in my soul approve of the teaching of Trinity College, I believe that my appearing to sanction it, would be a positive evil, and would expose me to the condemnation which the Apostle says is the just portion of these who say, ' Let us do evil that good may come.' " ^ Here the Bishop's quotation from his letter ends, though the very next words of that letter are the following : "Were I go to the Council, as you say, would be the ' wiser and more honourable course,' and enter my protest against the teaching which I disapprove, no good result would follow, as 1 could not expect to effect a change in the teaching of the University, and the melancholy picture of a house divi- ded 'against itself would be presented." ^ # It thus appears that, in order to disprovo tho assertion of the Corporntion, tho Bishop of Huron quotes the first half of a paragraph of his letter, stopping just when he arrives at those words, used by himself in tho same letter, which would establish their assertion und disprove his own. Tlic Corporation also invito particular attention to the fact, that, after denying the ground for his refusal which tho words of his own letter, left unquoted by him, had distinctly expressed, the Bishop of Huron proceeds to quote, in his pastoral, expressions which immediately follow them, thus giving a resume of the Avholc sentence with the omission of tho only words upon whii;'. ilie Bishop and the Corporation are at issue. Once more, the Bishop of Huron says : " From the above extract it will bo seen that though I did not, in my place in tho Corporation, bring forward a charge against tho teaciiing of the University, yet I made the charge in the most solemn form in which I could put it to the President of tho Corporation, and as I received no answer to my letter, I concluded cither that the President was indifferent as to wha' opinion I might . te. tiiir of the teaching of Trinity College, or that he con'Mit/ii . .0 view which I expressed in tho same letter, " thui it was a wiser course for me to stand aloof from the University, than by a V'ublic protest to exhibit the melancholy picture of a house d'»^t' u against itself." '■ J. sli /Uid not, even when called upon by a member of my ^'.yacdi have givi i) expression to the opinion which I had iormed of Trinity College, had I not previously, in the most pointed and solemn manner, given expression to the same opinion to the President of that institution." The corporation regret that they are compelled to charac- terise this passage as most disingenuous. In proof of this assertion they quote below from two letters of the Bishop of Huron, and from the reply of the Bishop of Toronto to the first of those letters. In a letter, dated April I9th, 1860, tho Bishop of Huron uses the words, " I disapprove of Trinity College in many things." He thus gave" the ,1.'^ XXI Bi«»l: »•' 'I*" T' ronto opportunity of appealing to him, in the ft m'owi g ta.nost tcrma/to Btato the grounds of his disiip- ptjv '.. The letter of the Bishop of Toronto hears date April 2r)th, 18G0, and it may here bo obajrvcd that the cor- respondence originated in a letter addressed to the Bishop of Huron by the Bursar of Trinity College, inviting him in the name of the Corporation, to jxerciso his privilege cf nominating five members of the College Council from his own Diocese, in accordance with a statute to which ho had BO recently given his assent. Toronto, 25th April, 1860. My Dear Loud, I have read your letter of the 19th inst. with very much regret, because it has been my earnest wish that you should take your place at the Council of Trinity College, as you have equal power and authority with myself, and give us your hearty and strenuous assistance in its government and direction. Suffer me therefore to entreat you to re-consider and withdraw your letter of the 19th inst., and to proceed to the nomination of those whom you desire to represent your Diocese in the University. Trinity College being always intended for the benefit of Upper Canadu, and desiring no pre-eminence in the estab- lishment, it was provided in the charter at my desire that all the bishops shoxilJ enjoy equal authority. There are, you say, some things which you disapprove of in the institution, if so, permit me, as the wiser and more honourable course, to request you to come among us and point them out that they may be fairly examined and modi- fied if deficient, or confiriued if found correct. I feel assured from the knowledge I have of the members of our council that they are not unreasonable or disposed to retain any thing really objectionable. The authorities of Trinity College are quite aware, that that among the members of the Church in Upper Canada there are in some few points differences of opinion, but they have never considered them, nor are they disposed to con- i iii hi xxu aider them, a just cause of separation and estrangement. The same differences and in muclf the same proportion exist in England, as they do in the Church here, but the true Christians of both parties are found associating to promote and support institutions really good, and they disapprove of those who make them grounds of contention. This being the view which I take, and have always taken of the University's relation to the Church, I desire without offence to state that as it seems to me, you arc not at liberty to refuse to discharge the important duties of an office to which you have been appointed by competent authority without incurring a responsibility which the reasons you assign will in no way sustain or justify. In truth the very fact of your separation from us will inflict upon the Church and University an injury that you can never repair. One of the rules of conduct which I adopted in early life was the following : " Never if possible to permit an oppor- tunity of doing good to pass me unimproved." In carrying out this principle I may have frequently failed and suffered much discouragement, mortification and sorrow ; but believ- ing that no thought or effort for good is ever lost in our Lord's kind Providence, I persevcied in my course, and I now find on looking back when nearly at the end of my journey, that the balance is greatly in my favour. To bear and forbear in all situations of life, is the ordained lot and the wisdom of humanity, and our struggle after good, like prayer, should never cease. Hence, I have always strongly felt the truth of the Apostle's doctrine. *• That to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sm. Again entreating you to re-consider and withdraw your letter, I remain, my dear Lord, Your faithful Brother in Christ, JOHN TORONTO. To this strong and affectionate appeal of the Bishop of 1 nd estrangement, e proportion exist ere, but the true iating to promote hey disapprove of on. lave always taken , I desire withbut arc not at liberty es of an oflSce to ipetent authority the reasons you (( tion from us will n injury that you opted in early life permit an oppor- d." In carrying 'ailed and suffered >rrow ; but believ- s ever lost in our my course, and I t the end of my favour. To bear the ordained lot ugglc after good, , I have always I trine. '• That to ; not, to him it is id withdraw your I Christ, TORONTO. )f the Bishop of xxiii )ronto the Bishop of Huron replied in a letter containing following passage : I now come to that part of y^ur letter which has caused much anxious thought. I would preface my remarks by Isuring you that, in the commencement of my Episcopal Ireer, moved by the high opinion which I entertained of ^ur experience and judgment, I formed the resolution to ^ail myself of your advice and fatherly counsel whenever [could do so, without doing violence to my own convictions, id it has caused me many unpleasant feelings, that I am )t able, in the present case, to agree with the opinion lich you have advanced. You say that in early life you adopted the rule, " never if )ssible, to permit an opportunity of doing good to pass limproved." Any one at all acquainted with the history of )ur life will acknowledge that few men have more fully 3ted up to this excellent rule. But there is another rule Divine authority, which, I feel assured, you would not jsire to overlook, and which regulates my conduct towards Prinity College. It is the Apostolic rule, " Abstain from ll appearance of evil." I feel that I am bound to act up this rule, and as I cannot, in my soul, approve of the leological teaching of Trinity College, I believe that my jpearing to sanction this teaching would be a positive evil, id would expose me to the condemnation which the Apos- le says is the just portion of those who say, " let us do Ivil that good may come," were I to go to the council, as [ou say would be the wiser and more honourable course," Ind enter my protest against the teaching which I disap- Irove, no good result would follow, as I could not expect to jffect a change in the teaching of the University, and the lelancholy picture of a house divided against itself would \e presented. To avoid this I have heretofore kept aloof rom the University, and I am still satisfied in my own lind, that it is better for me thus to act than to introduce iiscussion into the council, and thus render patent to the irorld the differences which unhappily exist amongst us. Graying earnestly that the Lord will grant to us both that m m k XXIV wisdom, which cometh down from above, ani which is pure and peaceable, so that we may bo enabled to follow peace with all men, I remain, my dear Lord, With unabated respect and esteem. Your brother in the ministry, BENJ. HURON. P.S. — I have written the above as a private communica- tion to your Lordship, as your letter of the 25th of April appeared to me to require it. 13. H. Such is the correspondence. In the first letter the Bishop of Huron declares that he disapproves of Trinity College in many things ; in the second, the Bishop of Toronto urges him to give explicit expression to that disapproval at the proper time and place ; in the third, the Bishop of Huron refuses to do this, because he considers that such interfer- ence would be useless, at the same time stating that his letter is a private communication. And yet he does not fear to commit himself to the following statement : that he had made a charge against the teaching of the College, in the most solemn form in which he could put it to the Presi- dent of the Corporation ; that he received no answer to his letter, and that he thence concluded that the President was indifferent to his opinion, or that he agreed with him in thinking that it was better that he should stand aloof from the College. Any reader would justly infer from this statement that such a letter as that of the Bishop of Toronto could never have been addressed to the Bishop of Huron ; he would, indeed, infer that the whole transaction had been utterly the reverse of what it really was ; that the Bishop of Huron had openly and candidly stated objections against which the Bishop of Toronto shut his ear, rather than that the Bishop of Huron refused to state objections for which the Bishop of Toronto had most earnestly called. The Bishop of Huron describes himself as having said in av : rm XXV d which is pure to follow peace ecm, ainistry, J. HURON. ate communica< ! 25th of April | B. H." stter the Bishop Irinity College ■ Toronto urges -pproval at the shop of Huron ; such interfer- tating that his Bt he does not ment : that he he College, in it to the Presi- • answer to his ) President was id with him in md aloof from statement that to could never on ; he would, I been utterly shop of Huron against which than that the for which the having said in his Synod, " I have taken every pains for two years to inform myself concerni' g the teaching of the University." And again, near the close of his letter he adds, " I am in possession of ample information upon the subject, which I am ready to impart to those for whose satisfaction and guidance the opinion (given in the Huron Synod) was expressed." Yet the Bishop of Huron says elsewhere, " I was then, (February 24th, 1859,) for the first time, at a meeting of the Couporation of Trinity College." And he has never been there since. He has not only not carefully used, but studiously shunned, every open method of informing himself of the teaching of the College. He has preferred to observe and acquaint himself with the College under all the disadvantages inseparable from a distant and hostiU position, while he had every opportunity of acquiring that intimate and familiar acquaintance with the details of its system, which every friend of the Church and of the Uni- vercity would desire that our Bishops in Upper Canada should possess, and which is indeed a part of the duty which they are bound to assume on entering upon the episcopal office. As to the character of the instruction given in the Col- lege, the Corporation have full confidence in the teaching of the Provost, as being in entire conformity with the formu- laries of our church, as elucidated by her great writers ; and they now make a public demand of the Bishop of Huron to state definitely the points on which his objections are founded. They cannot tamely suffer any officer of tbe College to be assailed as "unsound and unprotestant," merely because he keeps close to those formularies and summaries of doctrine which constitute the only guide which we can safely and consistently follow as members of the Church of England. Of the closing paragraph of the Bishop of Huron's letter, the Corporation will only permit themselves to say, that if the Bishop of Huron had really entertained " the feelings of veneration," which he there affects to entertain, and which are assuredly entertained by every other member of 4d (I XXVI :i !!i the Corporation towards the object of his remarks, ho could never have made himself responsible for language which has drawn upon him the righteous indignation, not only of every Churchman in this diocese, but of every inhabitant of the province to whom the Bishop of Toronto is known, either by his public services or by the virtues of his personal character. (Signed,) JOHN TORONTO, President. CHARLES MAGRATH. Bursar and Secretary. IH I remarks, ho for language idignation, not but of every op of Toronto ' the virtues of iRONTO, President. THE SECOND LETTER ■I o» I 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 rith lyour request, I now proceed to redeem the pledge which I Igave in my pastoral, of making known to the clergy and llaity 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, md it became my duty to examine them. I perceived that jthe views of some of these gentlemen, more particularly con- Icerning 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 Itheso gentlemen were traceable to the teaching to which [they had been subjected, during their university course. The mode of teaching, as described to me, 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 I .ij ll 2 the mode of teaching ia 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 follorang are the questions and answers, from which you may form your own opinion, 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 ? 5. Did you ever knoAV 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 Jianded 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 8 md answers as verbatim, with that which the Provost uses, except in some ' instances it may not perhaps be so full. As each student enters the lecture room, he brings his own or another's copy ; of the manuscript, which he places on the table before him, I 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 jhe did or not, the perfect agreement of both proves that we lave got a correct copy. Ans. 6. — These copies now in use are positively correct ;opies of the Provost's, as far as they go. They are handed lown from class to class. The freshman, for whose benefit the catechism is designed, either copies one for himself, or las one given him by some of the students who have preceded lim. I have been asked repeatedly by the students, " How lo 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 |;rue, and can be proved in the most solemn manner. londs, almost I now proceed to give the answers of a clergyman in the )iocese of Huron. Ans. 1. — Attendance was compulsory. Ans. 2. — The Provost at each lecture asked questions, Bvidently from his own manuscript, upon the notes which he lad dictated at the previous lecture, and of course the mswers had to be taken from his notes. Ans. 3. — The students used every means to acquire the ■!l t 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 hy 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 )ropose to have it published, and the reply generally given ras, " The Provost would not like it." Whether or not he (vas consulted, I cannot say. resident in the cuse for absence 'i n words, and if i The next set of answers is from a layman, now resident in Ithe Diocese of Huron. Ans. 1. — Attendance on the catechism lecture was com- )ulsory. Ans. 2. — The Provost read from his manuscript as a jontinuous lecture, but must have been aware that we had it )ither written, or took very few notes in the room, and both [uestions and answers were contained in his lecture, although lot distinguished as such by him, being probably aware that w had both questions and answers before us. Ans. 3. — The students had both questions and answers rritten before they entered the room, and only compared their's 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. 5. — I never did. Ans. 6. — Each student of the first year either borrows, md 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 my student to copy, but I heard when I was at college that le 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 questions which were to be put to them, they , i m 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 boon asked to publish a catechiem, 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 lectuio 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 as 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 then[.selves, or students who had previously graduated in Trinity College, and as the Provost read Mb 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 two unimportant wordsy 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 one time lend his manuscript to a m notes which they lecture. I don't Provost's Gate- istions,' meaning have heard that echiem, in order lo of writing out iiate of Trinity be same footing lemselves from e Provost, were ost on the sue- •ocedure was aa ead to us about ds.) The next the preceding swers sufficient questions and lents who had as the Provost ipts with what ices, (texts of ght have been feet accuracy. recollect that ed the answer t word8y from 5 Friday, and distinctly as repeat it with the students, lUuscript to a ident, and I always considered that this was the origin of le almost stereotyped accuracy of our manuscripts. Ans. 6.— Yes; generally a student, after his previous lamination in the second year, at which time he passes his ^ird and last examination in the catechism, either gives, ids, or sells his manuscript catechism to junior students, ray case I obtained the loan of a manuscript catechism, id copied it out. It is familiarly known among the students "The Provost's Catechism." Ans. 7. — Never to my knowledge. Ans. 8. — No ; but I often wished, for ray own convenience, Ut it had been printed and published, as the copying of it Itailed a great deal of unnecessary labour upon rae, and isted much precious time, in fact, I thought it on the whole very strange proceeding. I have stated fully ray objections to this mode of teaching my pastoral ; I need not here repeat them. This manuscript, known as " The Provost's Catechism," ith the questions copied or corrected from his own manu- kript, 1 nt foi* that purpose, and the answers taken down Hrefully from his own lips and corrected from time to time, is been huaded down frora class to class, and has even been )ught and sold by the students. I have not given the iraes of those gentlemen frora whom I have received the iove answers to my questions, but I can obtain permission do so if necessary, and shall lay the original documents, ^gether with the letters which accompanied them, before ly member of the Synod appointed for that purpose. lere was but one gentleman to whom I applied who ex- ressed a wish " not to be implicated in the matter." I ive therefore not made any use of his communication. I now proceed to lay before you the teaching which I laracterise as "dangerous in the extreme." I have heard, Ihen examining graduates of Trinity College, statements fhich they have reported as made to them, either in the )ur8e of lectures, or in conversation with the Divinity Pro- sssor. Some of these T took down at the time I heard 8 thorn, flUfih as tho fi)llowin^, that " tho Church of England lost at tho Reformation .soino thin/^s which were in thotn- selves good and tended to edification :" that *' justification was an impertinent siilijoct 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 hero dwell upon them ; I come to tho consideration of documents which I shall quote, and 1 think when those documents are well weighed, and compared with tho articles and formularies of our Church, they will abundantly estab- lish tho conclusion to which I have come, that the teaching in Trinity College Is dangerous. I have now In my possession five copies of the catechism, which has been for years In the hands of tho students of Trinity College, and which graduates of tho University declare contains the questions of the Provost, corrected from his own manuscript, with tlio 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 fron^ one copy, or that they were reported with wonderful fidelity from the lips of tho lecturer. The following arc specimens of tho dangerous teaching contained in this catechism : — On the article, " J3orn of the Virgin Mary,'' wo find the following questions and answers : — QuES. — What is tho Hebrew form of the name Mary ? > Ans. — Miriam. QuES. — What docs that signify ? Ans. — Exaltation. ^ QuES. — What signification, then, had it us borne by the mother of our Lord ? Ans. — The exalted position resulting from her having: given birth to the Redeemer of the world. | QuES. — Who is the first recorded possessor of this name ? i Ans. — Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron. QuES. — Show that she may be regarded as holding ai nrch of England nition under the old dispensation, typical of that which Tari/ held under the new ? Ans. — Miriam was an instrument in bringing the Israel- \c% into tho promised land, and Mary was an instrument bringing mankind into the Kingdom of Glory {or Heaven.) QuES. — What was tho boliof of the early Fathers respeot- »g tho 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 lot be mother of another. gorous teaching as borne by the | Such teaching as this I regard as a dangerous tampering Hth a false doctrine of tho Church of Rome, directly lead- jg to idolatry. It will, I doubt not, be said by some that ^earson, in his " Exposition of the Creed," teaches the same ling. Even wore this the case, still I would consider the caching as dangerous in tho present time, when there is, specially in the minds of the young, such a hankering after le errors and superstitions of Rome ; but Pearson does not sach that the Virgin Mary had a divinely appointed type \nder the law ; neither doos he teach that she was an in- urnment in bringing mankind into the Kingdom of Heaven. [e says : " As she, Miriam, was exalted to be one of those [ho brought the people of God out of the Egyptian bond- je, so was this Mary exalted to he the mother of that Saviour, [ho, through the red sea of his blood, hath wrought a plen- 90US redemption for us, of which that was a type." In tho luestions and answers of the catechism, the undue exaltation If Mary is pushed far beyond what Pearson says upon the ibject, and we see ihe germ of that full-blown superstition fhich, in its most r* volting form, meets us in the late letter If the Pope to tho Canadian Bishops. I fear such teaching )r our young men. If they are taught to believe that Mary typified in the law, they may soon conclude, with Bona- [enture, that she is to be found in the Psalms, and thus be id to look upon the idolatrous honour done to her in the Jhurch of Rome as natural and right. 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 (rod 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 w^ell as I can rememher, 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 they 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 lleformation,* 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. Dominick pray for us.' Can •we regard that man as a sound-hearted member of the Church of England^ as she now is, who has learned that the 11 ," I find the ion ? Prove od the Son, srith the holy klilitant, &c., its departed : part rever- their part m with Crod jrgyman who " I will now things which t's doctrinal I can only he time. In Jrtainly gave 3st the saints it that they ion make use is one of the re lost at the ion upon my )r the dead, if all divines without ever il view of it rch. When )rofess to be- in our spirit- i for us, the or us.' Can mber of the •ned that the same Church, at the Reformation, lost certain valuable practices, which, of course, it would be 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, we 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 deservings ; wherefore, that we are justified bt/ 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 ' ;i ■■: ;le 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 Rome 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 bo more widely applied to mean any holy rite. QuES. — Where, then, lies the error c" the Roman Church in making seven sacraments ? Ans. — In drawing no due distinction between the two great sacraments and other holy rites. QuES. — The sacraments are said to be generally necessary to salvation ; what is meant by generally ? Ans. — Crencrally here means universally!! generally^ 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 flows 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. QuES.— What is to be observed concerning confirmation ? Ans.— Confirmation was in early times pari of the sacrament of baptism; it became separated from it in three ways, &c. QuKS. — What concerning orders ? 13 atechism the Ans. — This rite was appointed by Christ, and ivas 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. QuES. — What respecting penance ? Ans. — In ea^rly 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.— rin this rite, there are outward signs, but no spirit- ual grace, and no promise of the remission of sins. man Church een the two Is ic safe to teach young men thus to regard the so-called sacraments which the Church of Rome has added to the onlg 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 Cfospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures, but yet 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 does 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 "universally." When we add to this that these young men who are thus taught in the first year of their universit;;^ course, to toy with the sacra- ments of the Church of Rome, are further instructed that the locipient of the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper partakes of the " glorified humanity " of the Son of God, I think it will be acknowledged that the teach- ing is dangerous in a very high degree. Moreover, in this illil ,. . III! I i* ^>i 14 catechism, our Lord's words, recorded in the sixth chapteif 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 thorn, 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., 53. 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, &c. QuES. — Prove from Holy Scripture that the Holy Eucha- rist sustains the spiritual life imparted by Baptism f 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., 53. 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 e Lord's Supper ' the sacrament was first ordained,) but he spake of spiritual I bread many 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, ' Your 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." — Oranmer. I cannot, thereCore, think it sound divinity or good pro- testantism 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 participation of his body and blood, bi/ 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 effects of the teaching in Trinity College is that which common sense dictatedj 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 cf their parents or pastors. Whether this has always been suOicient to prevent the growth of the tares, I cannot say. Before I conclude this letter, which is the last I shall ad- Mil 'PI ill I \;i:ll,,|fl 16 dress to you on this subject, I would briefly r.dvert to one or two passages in ray 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 allyknew that he would act wisely and justly, but that such diseretion could not be safely intrusted to every person who might hereafter bo elected Chancellor of the University. With reference to my reasons f©^ not appearing at the meetings of the Corporation, they are stated by me in my letter to the Bishop of Toronto, and ©cciipy 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 College, 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 folloio, (as I could not expect to effect a change in the teaching of the University).' The words which I have included between advert to one or M 17 brackets are the only portion of the paragraph noticed by 1 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 satisfied in I my own mind, that it is better for me thus to act than to i introduce discussion into the Council, and thus to render i patent the differences which unhappily exist among us.'' I 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 fwith 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 I 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- Iphatic way, " I cannot in my soul approve of the theological Iteaching 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 )ut a small part of the information which I have obtained in [my examination of the graduates of the University. Some, 8 ■ii 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 faithful friend and brother in the faith, BENJ. HURON. August 29th, 1860. EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE CORPORATION OF TRINITY COLLEGE. At a mee>,ing of the Corporation of Trinity College, held on Thursday, [September 27tb, 1860: [(Present: Thb Hon. and Right Rbv. the Lord Bishop or Toronto, The Hon. Sib John Beverley Robinson, Bart., CHANCELtOB or THE UnIVBRSITT, The Rev. the Provost of Trinity College, The Rbv. the Vice-Provost, The Rev. PRorsssoR Hatch, PROrBSSOB BOVBLt, M.D., The Hon. G. W. Allan, The Hon. Mr. Vioe-Ghamcellor Spragqe, James M. Stbachan, Esq., The Hon. Mb. Justice Haoarty, D.C.L., Jambs Lukin Robinson, Esq., Samuel Biokerton Harhan, B.C.L. The Hon. John Hillyard Camuron, D.C.L., The Rev. T. B. Fuller, D.D., D.C.L., The Rbv. William McMurray, D.D., D.C.L., The Rev. S. Givins, The Ret. J. T. Lewis, LL.D.) The Lord Bishop of Toronto made the fcllowing 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 bis 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 regar^ to those things which he admits that he has taught, has sucoessfully defended his doctrine by reference to Holy Scripture, and the Book of Common Prayer, and to those venerated Divines, whose writings are of the highest authority in our Church." The Bishop then called upon the Provost to read his letter. The letter of the Provost having been read, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted : Moved by the Hon. G. W. Allan, seconded by S. B. Harhan, Esq., Retolved,—T\xo.t this Corporation, having heard the reply of the Provost of Trinity College to the letter of the Bishop of Huron, bearing date August 29, 1860, desire to express their entire satisfaction with the expla- 1 1 1 ft I 20 natioDH offered of the charges advanced ngaitiHt the Theological teaching of the Institittlnn in that Inttor. Moved by tho lion. Mr. Justico 11a(1AHTV, aocondcd by tho Hon. J. H. Cameron, Resolved, — That tliis Corporation feci it iiicutnbont upon them to expresn their unfeigned Hurpriso and regret at tiic cour»o wltioh has been adopted by the Lord lilshop of Huron to obtain evidence against the Theological teaching of this Institution. They naturally supposed that a gentleman in tho position of tho Provost would bo safo from any charge of unsoundness until personally referred to for an admission or denial of hearsay statements. Had the charges been denied by the accused this Corporation could not properly have objected to the right of his accusers to proceed to collect evidence relevant to the charge. Apart from the theological bearing of tlio case, this Corporation desire to express their decided opinion as to tho unprecedented manner in which grave charges have been publicly advanced against the soundness of the teaching of this College, by one in whom tho luw has vested large powers to enquire into and reform any thing erroneous, but who Las not attempted to exercise this power in a constitutional manner. 'I eological teaobing by tho Hon. J. H. •a them to ezpresn has been adopted St the Theological ion of tlio Provost ersonally referred Had the chargen ot properly have evidence relevant orporation desire manner in which soundness of the ted large powers tas not attempted LETTER 1. My Lord, I have prepared, in reply to tho letter addressed by tho Lord Bishop of Huron to tho Executive Com- mittee of his Synod, a full statement of my teaching on the points objected to by his Lordship, together with authori- ties from appr*/ red writers of the Church of England : but, independently of this more elaborate reply, I think it neces- sary to give a brief answer to some of the comments of the Bishop on the manner, matter and tendency of that teaching. As respects the manner, I can add but little to the statement which I made in my letter of the 28th of July, which was published in the daily papers, and which I here transcribe. "It is my duty to lecture the students of the first year on the catechism of the Church of England. For this purpose I have compiled a manuscript which I read and explain to the class. The students are expected to take notes of the lecture, and to answer questions on the next day of attend- ance. In order to save time and to observe due method in my questioning, I have prepared, for my own use, a book of questions, omitting or adding questions at my discretion, when I use it. The only written result of my lectures which I require or wish, is a summary of them in the note-books of the students. The contents of these books I never see, nor can I hold myself responsible for them. I am, however, given to understand that it is the practice of some of the students to write down the questions which are addressed to them, and to reduce their notes into the form of answers to these questions. This practice I disapprove, and it is well known that I do not consider it to be a legitimate mode of registering the information given in the lectures. Some years ago I consented, more than once, to.place my book of questions in the hands of students, on their plea that it would assist them to complete or correct their notes. I know also that the note-books have passed from hand to hand in the College, but so far from encouraging this, I have urged young 22 men to trust, if not exclusively, at all events, mainly, to their own recollection and record of what thoy hear. My wish is further, that in replying to my questions, the students should give, in their own language, for the most part, the substance of wliat they have been taught. Of course there are instan- ces in which substantial accuracy can be secured only by keeping close to the exact terms in which the instruction was conveyed. I beg, thoroforc, to observe that no manuscript known by the name of "The Provost's Catechism," or by any other name, is placed in the hands of any student entering the University, far less is any student expected to learn it." The statement which I hero made is fully borne out by one of the Bishop's own authorities. lie says, " I do not think the Provost has ever given both questions and answers to any student to copy, but I heard when T was at College that he lent his questions on ono occasion, and that a copy was taken of tht Ji. Of course, as soon as the students had a copy of the questions which were to be put to them, they 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 of any copy called ' The Provost's Cate- chism.' I have hoard of the 'Provost's Questions,' meaning those questions which the Provost asks. I'havc 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 queati >ns which the 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 own manuscript ? 2B iminly, to their r. My wish is ttudcnts should , tho substance ero are instan- Bcurod only by nstruction was ript known by by any other ; entering tho learn it." borne out by ys, " I do not IS and answers as at College id that a copy students had to them, they Bs which they uro. I don't ovost's Cate- •ns,' meaping ^e hoard that ism, in order P writing out do publicly, and willing ;he seri:s of •essed to his n catechism thrown out I A. — Certainly not. I put questions to tho students ht tho opening of each lecture, on tho subject of the preceding lec- ture, to bo answered by them vivd voce. Consequently tho statement that questions were read at the first lecture is absolutely untrue. Q. 3. — Did tho students write both questions and answers as he dictated them ? A. — Since neither questions nor answers were dictated they could not be written by the students. 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 r^nl, Q. 5. — Did you ever know the Provost to lend his manuscript to a student to correct his notes taken down at lecture ? A. — I have no recoUectiou whatever of having lent my man- uscript, nor is the v orrectness 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 tlic book fami- liarly known among the students as " The Provost's Catechism?" A. — I believe that a manuscript containing my questions, with answers framed from the notes of my lectures, was compiled, soon after the opening 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, until I was informed of it in July last by Dr. Bovel), who received his information from the Bishop of Huron. I have never seen such a book, and know of its existence only by report. Q. 7. — Did the Provost ever express his disapproval of the use of these note-books ? A. — I did frequently express disapproval of the servile use of thft note-books of others, conceiving however that they ¥m\ II V' I ii 24 contained merely an analysis of my lectures. Had 1 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 done for some years, I cautioned students not to avail themselves of them for the purpose of reducing my lectures 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, Avith the Bishop of Huron, have regarded as very objection- able, and without precedent at home. 2nd, — Because the fact, that answers to the questions were 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 it must be evident to any reasonable man that I cannot justly be made answerable for the terms in which young men, little versed in Theology, have thought fit to give expression to my teaching. In the next paragraph 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 25 uscript on the 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 to 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 ray 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 which the hearing and keeping of the word of Q-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 mankind into the kingdom of Glory (or Heaven,)" For this answer, as being 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 be under- stood to imply some past or permanent ministry of the Blessed Virgin tending immediately to the salvation of man- kind. ' ^ ^ lis r " m ■::« 26 In explanation of my own view, I would say that I 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 Hfifary 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 tho 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 meaning 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 blessed Virgin." And again, " The peculiar eminenoy and unparalleled privilege of that mother, the special honour 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, have 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, Oxf. 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 my u "r letter : some of these writers maintain the perpetual V'l;; \ y as a reasonable and pious opinion, while others coniena that it is a necessary doctrine proved by Holy Scripture. I should be disposed to take the ground occupied by tl^e former, and I trust that their authority, together with luat 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 the " 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 prac tice, and as an invasion of the prerogative of Almighty God • i 28 , ''Ji the former they allow to be a probable and reasonable belief. They distinguish also between general and 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 tWends. 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 a letter addressed by Bishop Ridley to the martyr Bradford, shortly after his condemnation : " Brother Bradford, so long as I shall understand thou art in thy journey by God's grace I shall call upou 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 sbalt know more clearly." — 3ee vol. iii. p. 370 of Fox's Acts 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 Ood, 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 I 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 whole 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 ministerial, absolution of the minister, which takes effect, not at his (the minister's) pleas- ure, but according to the genuineness of the icpentance of those to whom it is administered. Iq 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 h 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 life 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 in prt(Ctico invariably use the word " sacrament " of baptism and the Lord's Supper only, 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 : «< Generally necessary, not to GoJ, as instruments whereby He is to save ; but to us, as God's appointed means of 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 I shall show by quotations in my longer letter. I have been accustomed also to show how this general necessity is limited, by lefcronce 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 81 our Church, and among the rest by Archbishop Ussher' 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 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 Him, as the meat and drink we take is w'^h us, when by the ordinary work of nature, it is converted into our own substance ; socondly, that this conjunc- tion is immediately made with his huma- liure," — (Jssher'aWorks, 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 tlie 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. «' The body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." 'Verily and indeed,' no less truly because not corporally, ' By the faithful,' the wicked cannot receive. 1 Cor. X. 21. St. Augustine's saying "the wicked eat 'panem Domini,' butnot'panem Dominum.'" Our La'd speaks also of spiritual bene^ts which shonld certainly follow from eating His flesh and drinking His blood, of which b'juefits the wicked cannot be thought to partake. St. John vi 54, 56." 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 least undue prominence and exaggerated im- portance have been given to matters of very secondary mo- ment. Your Lordship is well aware that it is not my teach- ing, but t^ ^ 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. LETTER II. [My Lord, In my former letter I have replied to the objections urged Iby the Lord Bishop of Huron against the instruction which jl give to the students of Trinity College on the catechism of the Church of England, in respect both of the form and of the substance of that instruction ; it now remains that I should pro'duce, 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 I say that though, undoubtedly, the name of any person, who ! makes himself responsible for the statements contained in I that letter, should have been given, I am glad that 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 j 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 rell that I have taken every opportunity of exposing the 1 danger of prayer for the dead, and the fallacy of the argu- 5 84 m mentfi 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 Reforraation," 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 con86quence 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 nature 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 thmgs 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 suppose that I thought that "justification was an impertinent 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 35 3 "statements the Bishop's statement that "when examining graduates of Trinity College " for Holy Orders, he "took down, at the time he heard thorn, 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 t<^ 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 Oi 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 alumnus 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 affirm that two things stand, hy divine appointment, in the relation of type and antitype. Is it irreverent or superstitious to trace with caution and difiidence 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 ? i m 8G Tho first autlioritj which I shall hero 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 tho numo of Jesua wu8 tho same with Josliua, so this of Mnrjr was tho Banio with Miriam. Tho first of whicli uamo r«'Oordod was the daughter of Anirani, tho sister of Moses iind Aiiron, a propiit'tcss; to whom tho bringing of Israel out of Egypt is attributed a« well as to her brethren. For I brought thee up out of the land of J'Ji/i/pt, paith the Lord, and redeemed thee out of the houte of servanli ; and I sent before thee Mosei, Aaron and Miriam. As she was exalted to bo one of thorn who brought the people of God out of Egyptian bondiigo ; so was this Mary exalted to bo tho mother of that Saviour, who through the Hod Sea of His blood, hath wrought a plentcoui) roderaption fi)r us, of which thiit was but a typo : and oven with the confession of the lowliness of an handmaid, she seems to bear thatexal- tfttion in her name." Bp. Pdonon (1(512-1680) Exposition of the Creed, vol. I, p. 286. Oxford, 1820. ;<;;!' 'i^'Mi •' Germinct terra saloatorem, ' Lot this earth bring forth a saviour ' be the terra promissionis, the blessed Virgin who was in this the land of promise. So was this very place applied by Irenious in his time, who touched the Apostles' times; so by Lactantius ; so by St. Ilierom and St. Augustine. Those fcnr meet in this sense, as do the four in the text. Quid est Veritas de terra ortaf est Christus de fueminA natus. Quid est Veritas f Filius Dei. Quid terra f Caro nostra. ' What tho truth ? Christ. What the earth ? Our flesh.' " Bp. Ardretues, (1556-1626), Sermons, vol. I., p. 185-H. Oxford, 1841. " Quando enim Eves, juxta Irenasum, advocata erat Maria 7 ciim in vivis erat Maria? An cum morlua 9 Sine dubio ctim in vivis. De vivente Mari& loquitur Ireneeus, oon de defunctil. Comparationom instituit inter Virginem Evam, viventem, et Virginem Mariam viventem : et beneficia majora docet per Virginem Mariam humane gencri comparata, quam per Virginem Evam fuerant olim deperdita. Eva per angelum teuebrarum seducta ; Maria per anffelum lucia instructa, Eva diabolo ausoultans prasvaricata est etfuit inobedieni ; Maria sancto angelo fidcm habens, Deo obtemperavit et, fait obediens. Eva inobediens, et sibi et universo humano generi causa facta est mortis, causa nempe pariendo mortem per quod (quam?) perimus; Maria obediens, et sibi et universo humano generi, causa facta est salutit, causa nempe pariendo vitam per quam servamur." '•For when, according to Irenseus, was Mary the advocate of Eve? When Mary was /ii'in^' ? or when ehewaa dead f Doubtless when she was living. Irenaeus speaks of Mary living, not of Mary when departed this life. He institutes a comparison between the virgin Eve when living, and the ▼irgin Mary when living, and instructs us that greater benefits were pro. cured through the virgin Mary for the human race, than had been lost of 87 old through the virgin Evo. Eve wai led astray by an angel of darknett, Mary inilructed by an angel of light. Eve, giving ear to the devil, tranigrtK , d and uaa disobedient; Mary, giving credenoe to the holy angel, eubmitted her- self to Ood and was obedient. Eve, disobeying, became the cause of death, both to herself and ^o the whole human rooe, the cause, that is to say, by bringing forth death >'hor iby we perish ; Mary, obeying, became the cause oj 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 (1567-1024) iJefensio Eccletice Anglicante, p. 375. 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 ui\tB of the forbidden fruit, in hope she and her husband should become gods and their offapring lilce young gods, knowing good and evil : the issue of this adulterous compact with the serpent was, that she conceived 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. Tu cure this malady by the contrary, Ood in his wisdom so ordains, that another of the weaker sex, of a temper quite contrary to her mother Eve — one aa lowly as she was proi ', whom the old serpent had never tempted with dreams of being a quec: , - uoh 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 Ilim that was the Son of Ood, the tree of lif", 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 cuusuats should be so contrary, whenas the principal agents with whom they contracted were such opposites ; the one was the Spirit 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 soul by con- tracting with Satan without advice or consent of her husband : and this is that which made her estate and the state of her sex far more desperate than Adam's was : fur, as divines ohserve, the wicked angels, because they sinned wittingly and willingly, without a tempter, are left without all means of a mediator or redeemer : now the woman, in that she did partake more deeply of this their sin, (for being tempted by them she forthwith turned tempter with them,) was more liable to their remediless punishments than the man, until the Lord in mercy found out the means here mentioned by our apostle (1 Tim. ii. 15) to relieve her. The conclusion intended by him in that discourse is to assure womankicd, that Eve's assenting to Satan (without the advice of her husband) was not more available to condemn the sex, than the blessed Virgin's bringing forth of her first-born, whom she conceived by mere reliance on God's promise, without the concurrence or furtherance of man, was to redeem it." Jackson (1579-1040) Works, vol. VL,pp. 22n-j^ford, 1844 38 " For she (the Virgin Mary) was highly zealous to reconcile her being Mother to the Messias, with those privities and h.y 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 (1613-1607) Works, vol. 11., p. \2. London, 1822." " The song, as Grotius thinks, hath respect to fche 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 that 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 be 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 anoth:. Elizabeth, married to a priest of the line of Aaron." Bishop Bull (1634-1710) English Theological Works, pages 62-3. Oxford, 1844. "The blessed Virgin Mary was the only woman that took oflF the stain and dishonour of her sex, by being the instrument of bringing that into the world, which should repair and ftake amends for the loss and damage brought to mankind, by the trangresaion of the first woman, Eve. By a woman, as the principal cause, we wore first undone ; and by a woman, as an instrument under God, a Saviour and Redeemer is born to us. And the blessed Virgin Mary is that woman." Ibid, p. 69. U| . i*B 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 be 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 Andrewcs, as well as 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 believe 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 Ble; sed 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 spake in time past by the prophets of the future Incarnation of 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 a 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 worship 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 than the immediate effect of hints and suggestions such as these. TI. The Perpetual Virginity. 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 he has to the communica- tion of this instruction as to the opinion of the early church, but as it is evident that it excites his apprehension, I will endeavour to allay that apprehension by the following ex- tracts, which prove that very many of our best writers have agreed on this point with the early Fathers. 40 " They say, moreover, that the perpetual virginity of our lady is to be believed of necessity, as Cyprian, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Austin, and all other speaking thereof say. But this is not found in the scripture ; erffo, there is some thing to be believed that is not written in the scripture. "The minor, thai is to say, that this is not written in the scripture, is false. For, first, none of the old authors that rehearse traditions of the Apostles unwritten, make mention of the perpetual virginity of our lady to be one of them ; but they rehearse only diverse ceremonies or bodily ges- tures, and such rites used in baptism, prayers, holydays and fastings which, as I have manifestly declared, are not necessary to salvation ; but the most part of them are clean taken away, and the contrary commanded and used by the universal church. Moreover, all the said authors prove her perpetual virginity by this text of scripture : ' This door shall be still shut and not opened for any man to go througli it, but only for the Lord God of Israel ; yea, he shall go through it, else shall it be shut still.' For if these and such other fathers had not judged her perpetual virginity to have been written in the scriptures they would never have judged it to have been a thing to be believed under pain of damnation. Saint Jerome also calleth Helvidius a rash and ungodly man, because that he taught that uur lady had other children by Joseph after Christ's birth; which doctritu^ he could not prove by the scriptures of God. In like manner we call all them that preach any doctrine in the church without the authority of God's word, both ungodly, rash and wicked members of anti-christ." Archbishop Cranmer, (1489-1655,) Parker Society's Publications, Remains and Letters, page 60. '♦ ' And she brought forth her first-begotten Son.' These words, after the outward appearance, sound as though Mary the mother of Christ had more sons than Christ. And there was an heretic which steadfastly said, that Mary had more sons after tlie brought forth Christ: and here he took his arguments, saying, ' We read in scripture that Chiist had brethren, which argueth that Mary had more sons besides Christ,' which, indeed, is a foolish a^ument against all learning : for we must consider the phrases of the Hebrew tongue. The Jews in their tongue call all those which are kinsmen brethren : and so the kinsmen of our Saviour were called his brethren, after the manner of their language ; not that they had one mother, or that Mary had more sons but Christ : therefore these heretics go far wide to prove that Mary had more sons besides Christ, because we read that he had brethren. Let them consider the propriety of the Hebrew tongue ; then they shall soon perceive how fond and foolish their arguments be. " The second argumect which these fond fellows make is this : the Evan- gelist saith, ' And she brought forth her first-begotten son. ' By these words they will prove, erffo, she had more than one son : Christ was the first- begotten, but she had more beside him. Here 1 would have them to con- sider this yrord primogenitum, which signifieth him qui prima aperuit vulvam, 'him that first opened the womb:' but she had no more, neither before nor after, but was a clear virgin before she brought forth, and after she brought l'-^'^ 41 ona, Remains forth him, she remained a virgin. And therefore these heretics do wrong- fully violate, toss, and turmoil the scriptures of God, according to their own 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 primogenilum ; ' 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 th^t 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 ho saith, ' He knew her not until she had brought forth her first begotten-son.' It foUoweth not, ergo, that he knew her after. Like as it foUoweth 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 104-100, 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 be proved by any scriptures, Qen- nadius writeth thus: Helvidii pravilatem arguens Eieronymus libellum doeu- mentit acripfurarum sufficienter factum adversua eum edidit : ' St. Hierome, reproving the wilful lewdness of the heretic Helvidius, (denying the perpetual virginity of Christ's mother,) set forth a book against him furnished with 6 42 sufSoiont testimonies of the soir stares.' Gennadius saith the perpetuM virginity of our lady is proved sufficiently by the scriptures : M. Harding, only to maintain his quarrel, saith it cannot be proved by any scriptures, but stauJeth only by tradition. " M. Harding ;• This is a loud lie. Try it out who will. Gennadius saith not so ; but only that St. Hierome's book, which he wrote against Helvidius, affirming that our lady bare children after she had born Christ, was suffi- ciently furnished with testimonies of the scriptures.' The answer. • 0. M. Harding, why should there be so much folly in one man ? Thus standeth the case : Helvidius the heretic said that our lady had other children by Joseph her husband besides Christ,' and so denied her perpetual virginity. Against this heresy St. Hierome wrote a book, and as Gennadius saith, ' furnished the 6f"^9 sufficiently with many testimonies of the scriptures to prove that our lady continued still a pure virgin.' For what thing else should he prove ? And what is this else but the same that I say, that the perpetual virginity of our lady, by report of Gennadius, is proved sufficiently by the scriptures ? The words of Gennadius are these : Libellum teatimoniia tcripturarum aufficienter factum. Therefore M. Harding, for humanity's sake, spare this unmanly upbraiding of lewd lies, and bestow them rather among your fellows. " St. Hierome hiuiL'jlf in so vain a contention, moved by an heretic, thought it sufficient to answer thus : Mariam nupaiiae post partum non eredi- mus, quia non legimua. " We believe not that Mary was married again after her child-bearing, because we read it not." Works of Bishop Jewell, page 440, Parker's Society Publications. " For which cause even in matters divine, concerning some things we may lawfully doubt and suspend our judgment, inclining neither to one side nor other; as namely touching the time of the fall both of man and angels; of some things we may very well retain an opinion that they are probable and not unlikely to be true, as when we hold that men have their souls rather by creation than propagation, or that tho mother of our Lord lived always in the state of virginity as well after his birth as before (for of these two the one, her virginity before, is a thing which of necessity we must be- lieve; the oiher, her continuance in the came state always, hath more likelihood of truth than the contrary.)" Hooker, (1654 — 1600). Ecclesiastical Polity, Book IL. Chap, vii. ^ 5, page 262. Oxford, 1841. " This, I take it, is of the same character with that message of the angei unto the blessed Virgin herself in St. Luke, chap. i. 81 : Kal iSoii (Tu>j\.if^ iv fompi. Behold, thou ahalt conceive in thy toomb, not iv yatrrpl ({ctr, thou thall be with child, and bring forth a ion ; as the angel said unto the wife of Manoah^ (Judges ziii. 8,) and to others which, beyond expcetp ' nourse of nature, did conceive and bring forth sons of promise. Bo iits again czpresBly tell us, that the Virgin Mary was espous^') ■■j>' :he soQ uf David before the angel Gabriel did bring this mer it; iis still continued in the same virginity, and therefore is to be acknowledged ti;c ever Virgin Mary. As if the gate of the sanctuary in the Prophet Ezekiel wore to bo understood of her : This gate shall he shut, ii th-M not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it : because the Lord the Oodof Israel hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." Pearson on the Creed, Vol. L, page 272, Oxford, 1820. m i #f f' 3^; /■•I 1 te: 4'' m, : ji m W'i &&■ :'^1 *' And we are to com eive Elizabeth being filled with the Spirit to have given the title of her Lord to the babe in the blessed Virgin's womb, not according to the poor narrow sense of the degenerate Jews, but accorriing to the most august and highest sense of the word, viz., that He is so our Lord, as to be our God also. Now the necessary consequence of this dig- nity of the blessed Virgin is, that she remained for ever a Virgin, as the Catholic Church hath always held and maintained. For it cannot with de- oerry be imagined, that the most holy vessel which was thus once conse- orat- ' to be a receptacle of the Deity, should afterwards be desecrated and profaned by human use," Bishop Bull's EnglLh Theological Works, page 71, Oxford, 1844. "She was a virgin when she br.r him, Gen. iii, 15, Is. vii. 14, lu .o i. /:. It is very probable s)ie contin-.r! so after. Matt. i. 25, comparfi.' with 1 Sam. XV. 35. His brethren were his kinsmen, or Joseph's children, by ano- ther wife ; they are not called her's. Biahop Bevendge, (1636—1708,) Thesaurus Theologicua. Works, Vol U., ' ... />«../« 96, Oz/c-rf, 18«7. r . Bishop Wilson (1663— 1755) on Matt. i. 25: "The words 'till she had brought forth her first born son,' do not imply that she had others, as ap- pears by Gen. xxviii. 15, 2 ^am. vi. 23, 1 Sam xv. 35, Is. xxi' 14, and Exod. xiii. 2. Heinsius translates these words -.—and took unto him Aw wife untU the brought forth her first born son : and knew her noi." 46 Stackhouse, (1680 — 1752,) after stating the opinion of the perpcti'."'! virginity in Pearson's own words, expresses his o\i Su 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 ifi often spoken of as the first-horn or first-begotten of God by them who never intended we should believe God to have any other Son born or begoti a in the same manner. See Hebrew i. 6. ; and see further in Heinsius Exerci- tationes Sacrso, 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 : . " Htec virgo ante par turn fuit, et virgo post partum, quae se ancillam Domini nominavit." Corpus et Syntagma eonfessionum, p. 267; Geneva:, 1612. In the " Harmonia Conft;3E!')num," published at Geneva, 1581, the words of the Bohemian or Waldensian confession, stand somewhat differently : , -p^. l ,. *'Quodque sit vera, c^^ta, pura, virgo, omni tempore, ante partum, in hoc, et poit hunc." J/arm. Con/, page S2: Oenevce, 1681, ?,i '--■■■'-•' f ^ I will close LiiC list with the testimony of Calvin, (1509- '' 1564.) Matth. i., 25. Nou cogaovit am donee: " Hujus loci prsetextu magnn* quondam turbas movit Helvidi in Ecclesia : quod inde colligeret Mariam uonnisi ad priraum usque partum virginem fuisse : postea autem ex marito sustulisse alios liberos. I'erpetua Mariee virginitas acriter et copiose ab Hi< '.onymo defema fuit. Nobis hco unum sufiioiat, stulte et perperam ex verbis Evangelistoe colligi I'nd post Christum natum contigerit. Vocatur 46 prhnogenltus : seel mm nlia rationo nisi ut aciamus ex virgine esse natum. Negatur Joseph rem cum eii habuisse donee pepcrlt : hoc quoque ad idem tempus restringitur, quid postea sequutura ait noa indioat. Talem esse soripturiD usum satis notum est. Et certo nemo unquam hac de re (jubbs- tionem raovebit nisi curiosus : nemo vero pertinaoiter insistet nisi conten- tiosus rixator." " On pretence of this passage Ilelvidius formerly made a great agitation in the church, inasmuch as he hence inferred that Mary was a virgin only up to the time when she first brought forth : but that after- wards she bore other children by her husband. The perpetual virginity of Mary was maintained by Jerome with spirit and at great length. This single remark may suffice us, that any inference from the words of the Evangelist, as to what happened after the birth of Christ, is foolishly and absurdly made. He is called the first-born : but in no other sense than to assure us that he was born of a virgin. Joseph is said not to have known her until she brought forth : this assertion also is restricted to the same time, it does not indicate what followed after. It is well known that such is the usage of scripture. And surely no one will ever raise a question about this matter, but one who is over curious : and no one will pertinaciously urge it but a contentious brawler." Comment, in Ilarmoniam Evang. Works, vol. IV., pp. 26, 27. It has been suggested to me that any one who has an English Bible may easily satisfy himself respecting the "usage of Scripture," of which Calvin speaks, and on which Bishop Latimer also insists in the passage quoted above, by compar- ing Daniel i., 21, with Daniel vi., 28, reading also, if his Bible has marginal notes, the note upon the former verse. These quotations will, I trust, justify me in having brought under the notice of my pupils the opinion entertained by the early Fathers respecting the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, with the grounds for that opinion. I have not, with Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Jewel, recognised it as a necessari/ truth ; I have not, with Bishop Latimer, branded its opponents as heretics ; I have not, with Dr. Jackson, pronounced it " very dangerous" to deny it ; on the contrary, I can regard, with respectful sympathy, those who, on a point of this nature, find themselves unable to adopt, ill the absence of any undoubted scriptural authority, either the one side or the other. While, however, I do not affirm that the authority of Holy Scripture tan !»c alleged in support of the opinion, I absolutely tfeii y!?^s 47 G8S0 Datum, lue ad idem Talem esse le ro ({U8SS- lisi conten- -rly made n, t Mary was that after- virginity of gtli. This )rd8 of the olishly and ise than to ftvo known the same I that suoh i question tinaciously 26, 27. has an 3 "usage i Bishop compar- 0, if his rerse. brought I by the mother • Jewel, Bishop 3t, with it; on ", those able to hority, fHoly jlutely deny that it can be alleged against it ; and I profess no sympathy Avliatever with any person?*, 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, na to desire to hear the name of mother from no other lips than His ; and that ^lie recognised also in him who bore the appellation of her hus- 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 ftystery of the Incarnation, and to watch with her over the daily steps of Ilim, whose Koly f'restnce must evermore have spoken to them of " that world," which '* they who are accounted worthy to attain neithev marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God." III. The Intercession of Saints. The next article to'which exception is takti 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 J and probable intercession with Qodfor 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 : '•Pergia nunc ordine tuo retrogrado ab Angelis nd Sanctos defunctos et eorum interceaiionem : ct hff^ -ri- ': hie, ais, commimepi conaensum. Interces- sionem in particulari, et merttvruim t-i dicas, nou hab:'j; Si in generali, et deprec.i . •■' r. solum vis, et Patrum habes et nostrum in boo consensum." " You now proceed in your retrograde course from angeld lo saints departed, and tiieir intercession : and you allege that you have here common consent in your favour. If you ruoau intercession in particular and meritorious, you have no such consent; if you mean only intercession in ^tneraZ and deprecatory, you have hercl.T the consent both of the Fathers and of our- selves." Crakanthorp, Defensio Eccl, Anglicanw, contra Archiepzscopum Spalatemem., p. 354, Oxf'^rd, iC47. I would invite particular attention to this distinct and judicious statement of the question, and especially x the ^iL'^ ^^sTTk'-; 48 m -*'i difference which tho author recoprnises hotwcon 'eritormin and deprecatori/ intercession. lam assured that many pious and honest mirds dread tlie suggestion that departed saints pray i>r us, on'y because they conceive that this hypothesis is an invabic. nf the exclusive privilege of the one Mediator ; deeply rep T'^ig their scruple, I cannot think it possible to admit the justice of their reasoning. If s good man departed out of this life continues to offer for his friends, and for the church ai large, the same supplication which he Avas 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 trendies on the inviolable prerogative of Him by whom alone we come unto the Father ? In the nevt 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 enimnegamua turn Hieronymum, turn CyprianiiiM, tumNazianzenuni, turn alios in eu opinione fuisse (qtuitn nos quoque ut piani amplectimur et probabilem) ut putaront Sauctos defunctos pro (tliquihus qui ipsix tioii priui erant et chart, etiain in particulari apud Deum precoa fundere. Cur tales a dcfunctis in particulari Deo commandari d'f^idamus ? Quis vel parentum in filiis, vel Pliorum in pareutum animabvis separatis memoriani, recentem adhuo, et charitatis ardore Hagrautom, obliteratiiiii sentiat cre- datve? Quis Sanctos Deum intuentcs, vel raemoria, vel clmritate dcbiliori opinetur in cognatos cbarosque amicos, quam erat in fratres buoh miser ille et immisericors Epulo ?" "For neither do vo deny that Jerome, Cyprian, Nazianzen, and others were of the opinion (which we also adopt as pious and probable) that departed saints oflFer even particular prayers to God for certain individuals who were previously knowu and beloved by them. Why should we hesitate to believe that such persona aro nut t'oularly commended to Cod by the departed ? Who can think or believe that in children is obliterate(\ luo 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 God 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, 5. " 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, 49 is the doctrine that Wfts onco Idivered unto tbo sain*,s, for which w«» ao earnestly contend : the saints praying for us doth no way croas this (for to whom should the BainU pray, but to the King of minU?) their being prayed unto, is the only stumbling block that lieth in this way." Archbishop Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, page 318, London, 168G. "Secondly, praising God with, and for, one another ; a duty continued mutually betwixt us and the very glorified saints in heavon, so ir as is most comnfiodious 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, 1817, "That wo imitate the saints in Heaven, that praise God, and proy in general for the • ilitant Church on earth; for it cannot bo conceived, that they being litea to the saints on earth in charity (which must needs be heightened by their glorification and the beatifical vision) will omit this especial testimony ot charity. ' Bishop Nicholson {died T 71). Exposition of the Catechism, {under (he article of the Commtinion of Saints) page 63, Oxford. 1842. " Neither is it to be doubted, that the saints in happiness pray for the Church militant, and that they have knowledge thereof; if they go not out like sparkles, and are kindlea again when they resume their bodies, which I have shown our common Christianity allows not." Herbert Thorndike {died 1672). Works, vol. IV., part 2, p. 763, Oxford, 1863. "As to what follows, ' that the saints departed do offer np their prayers to God for us ;' if it be unuerstood of the intercession of the saints in general, we deny it not. But this is no reason why we should pray to them to pray for us. Nay, on the contrary, if the deceased saints do of their own accord, and out of their p. i-fect charity, pray for us, what need we be so solicitous to call upon them for their prayers, especially when our reason and scripture also tell us, that we are out of their hearing, and that they do not, cannot know our particular wants and necessities ?" Bishop Bull's Works, vol. 11. , page26G, Oxford, 1827. Bishop Bull here clearly shows that the belief that the saints departed pray for us has no necessary connexion with the practice of addressing prayer^ to them : if the reasons which he gives do not suffice to condemn that practice, I believe it to be useles^^ to fight against it with any other weapons. " Here indeed we tind that saints and angels do intercede in heaven in behalf of the saints on earth, but that is not the thing in dispute between 7 m 50 ui : but here we find no such tiling at all as an invvnoatiou of them ; but h« aays they pray together with us whoa we proy to God himself, not when we pray first to thorn to pray with us : for this Origen maltes to be wholly needless; forifOod be propitious to us, so will oil the sacred powers be too. So that still wo find in Origen that invocation was only to bo made to God over all, although ho saith • that with those who do sincerely call upon God the holy spirits do join with them.'" Biihop Siillingfltet (1035— ICyj). Vindication of the Church of Enyland, page 489, Oxford, 1844. "I believe, most holy Jesu, that thy saints hero below have communion with thy saints above, thoy praying for us, in heaven, we here on earth celebrating their memorials, rejoicing at their bliss, giving thco thanks for their lul^mrs of luvu, and imitating their examples ; fot which, all love, all glory, be to thee." Bishop Ken (1037—1710). Prose Works, page 253, London, 1838. *'And to linow what the Romish doctrine concerning the invocation of saints is, wo need go no further than the council of Trent ; who there teach plainly, and command all their bishops to teach, ' That tho saints reigning with Christ do offer up their prayers for men ; that it is good and useful to invooate or pray uuto them, and for the obtaining benefits from God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our only mediator 'and Saviour, to fly to their prayers, help, and assistance. But such as deny that those that enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to bo called upon, or that assert either that they do not pray for men, or that to call upon them to proy for every ono of us is idolatry, or to be repugnant to the word of God, and to derogate from the honour of tho ono mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, or that it in a foolish thing to pray to such as reign in heaven with our voice or minds do think impiously.' Now, though we do not here say, that this their doctrine concerning the saints proying for us is so ; yet we say, that this their doctrine concerning our praying to the saints is a fond thing, and repugnant to the scriptures." Beveridge'a Works, vol. VII., page US, Oxford, 1845, i 4 In the "Thesaurus Theologicus," Bishop Beveridge, speaking of the "Communion of Saints," says that the saints have — "Thirdly. — Communion with the saints and angels ahove ; all which make up but one church with that below. " Where Christ is head and governor. " Kt(pa\^ yip iari Kal ay^iXuv kolI hvQpijtmv. — Chrys. " They pray in general for us. — Rev. vi., 10; Mail, xviii., 10. "Minister to us. — Heb. i., 14. "They rejoice at our good.— ZuAeii., 13, 14, xv., 7; Rev. xviii., 20. m 61 And we, for our purts, praiao flod for them, that they are got to heaTen. But by no means must pray to tlipm ; for— •• 1. They do not hcnr our prayers. — liaiah Ixiii., 18. •• 2. Nor can fulfil our dosiros. '• 3. This la part of that worship which is due only to Qod.— Rom. x., 14." Worki, vol. JX.,paget 132-3, Oxford, 1847. Observe here Blsliop Boveridgo's sound and strong rea- sons against the invocation of saints, while ho affirms their general intercession. «' Q. What communion have the saints hire below iciih the. saints above ? ••A. Those upon earth are GvX\fiA fellow cithern with the taints, ami of the household of Vod, of the same family with those in heaven. Wo bloss God for them, rejoice at their bliss, give thanks for their labours of love, and pray that with them wo may be partakers of the heavenly kingdom. They pray for us, for our con8un)mation and blisH, rejoice at our conversion ; but what farther the saints of hcuven do particularly in relation to us, or what we ought to perform in reference to them, is not revealed in scripture, nor cnn be concluded from any principle of Christianity." Robert Nelson (1650—1715). Fasts and Festivals, pageSi5, London, 1821. ')■ "Nor have we communion only with the saints on earth, but are of one city, and one family with such as are already got safe to heaven. Doubt- less they exercise that communion towards us, by loving and praying for their brethren whom they have left behind them. And we are to exercise it towards them, not by addressing petitions to them, which wo are neither authorised to offer, nor have any ground to think they can hear ; but by rejoicing in their happiness, thanking God for the grace which he hath bestowed on them, and the examples which they have left us; holding their memories in honour, imitating their virtues, and beseeching tho Disposer of all things, that having followed them in holiness here, we may meet them in happiness hereafter." Archbishop Seeker, {died 17G8). Works of, vol. IV., pp. 143-4, London, 1825. • The friend before mentioned has pointed out to me two additional authorities i i om the confessions of the continental reformers. " Colligunt nonnulli testimonia ex Augustino, etnliis, utostendant beatie in cselo curse esse res humanas. Potest boo illustrius ostendi ex oolloquio Moysi ct Elife cum Christo. Et non dubium est, beatos orare pro Ecclesia, •jcd tamen inde non sequit'ir, invocandos esse." •' Some collect testimonies from Augustine and others in order to show thai the blessed ones in heaven take an interest in the affairs of men. This may be shown with especial clearness from the converse of Moses and ( • I 52 ftT I Elias with Christ. And there is no donbt that the blessed pray for the Churoh, yet it does not thence follow that they should be invoked." Confessio Saxonica, Sylloge Confessionum, page 311, Oxford, 1827. Or Corpus et Syntagma Confessionum, page 127, Geneva, 1612. " Fatemur etiam quod sancti in ctelis, suo quodam modo, pro nobis coram Deo orent, sicut et Angeli pro nobis P''nt soliciti : et omnes creaturse pro salute nostra coelesti quodam modo lugemiscunt, et nobiscum, quemad- modum Paulus loquitur, parturiunt. Sed sicut ex gemitu reliquarum crea- turarum non est instituendus cultus invocandi eas, ita ex oratione sanct- orum in coelis non est approbandus cultus invocandi sanctoo : de his cnim invocandis nullum extat in sacris Uteris vel mandatum vel 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 bvhalf : and all creatures groan for our salvation, in a certain heavenly fashion, and travail in pain together with us, as St. l\'ul "peaks. But as we ought not, on the groaning of tho 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 invoking the saints, for concerning their invocation no precept or example is found in Holy Scripture." Confessio Wirtembergica, Corpus et Syntagma Conf.,p, 168. I close this long and weighty list of authorities with a tes- timony which I have already cited in my forr;er 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, so long as I shall understand thou art on 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." Fox. Acts ind Monuments, Vol. Ill, p. S70, folio, London, 1684. Yet the Bisiop of Huron says that, if young men are taught to believe that the saints probably do that for us, which Bishop Ridley besought the martyr Bradford to do for himself and for others, when he should have entered into his rest, the transition is easy to " Holy St. Dominick pray for 11 •it 58 for the 1827. 1612. 168. 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 adalts duly prepared by faith and repentance ; and that, after baptism, it is granted on repentance ; which remission is declared iu the authoritative absolutions of the church, and sealed in the reception of the Holy Communion. " The remission of sins as it is from God only ; so it is by the death and blood-shedding of Christ alone ; but for the applying of this unto us there are divers means established. 1. In the institution of baptism. 2. In the institution of the II oly Eucharist. 3 . Besides in the Word itself there is a like power ordained. Now you are clear, saith Christ, (no doubt from their sins,) propter setraonem hunc (John 15, 3). And the very name giveth as much, that is entitled, the wot d of reconciliation. Further, there is to the same effect a power iu prayer, and that in the priest's prayer. Call for 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 rre 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 carrieth no likelihood that our Saviour bestowing on them nothing here but that which before lio had, would use so much solemnity, so dvverso and new circumstances, no new and diverse grace being here communi- cated. 1. Now for Baptism, it appeareth plainly (John iv. 2) that iLe Apostles baptized in a manner from the beginning ; which I make no ques- tion they did not without a commission. 2. And for the power of adminis- tering the Holy Sacrament, it was granted expressly to them by Hoc facite (Luke xxii. 19), before his passion. 3. The like we may say of the power of preaching, which was given long before, even when he sent them and commanded them to preach the kingdom of God, which was done before 11 li- ^. a:i In M i '« ■ 54 this power was promised which is here bestowed, as will evidently appear ; the one being given (Matt. 10.) the other promised (Matt. xvi. 4.) — 4. Neither can it be meant of prayer. There is no partition in prayer- Prayers and supplications 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 Andrewes' Sermons, Vol. V., pp. 94-5, Oxford, 1843. " 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 retain are retained ' (which are the very words used in the Protestant Form of Ordination) surely intends to con- firm a power to remit sins. Wo 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. "3. By prayer,— 'Call for the Presbyters of the Church; the prayer of faith shall save the sick ; and if they have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.' "4. By p-eaching the word of reconciliation ;— ' God was in Christ, recon- 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 remitted. ' To forgive sins is no more proper to God, than to work wonders above 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, conditional." Archbishop Bramhall (1595— 1003). FbrA:.-f, VQl.y.,p. 213, 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 55 made the children of God, the members of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven ;' that God is not wanting to His own ordinances, when we do not set a bar against ourselves. [Secondly] we do acknowledge, that in penitence, pastors of the Cliurch have a dependent ministerial power of loosing from sin ; but that [the] primitive imperial original power is God's. God's power is absolute, • ad senientiandum simpliciter' —mlhont ifs ; man's power is only conditional — 'ad sententiandum si,' — to loose a man, if he be truly contrite and aptly disposed." Archbishop Br amhaW a Works, vol. V.,page\^Q, 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 He 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 sacraments 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 saoraments consecrated by their hands, by the keys left iu tlieir office, the full pardon and remicsion of siu might be made known, obtained, sealed, and delivered over to sinners." Bishop Nicholson [died 1671). Exposition 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 kneel'ng, but standing rather : and this absolution is an act of authority, by virtue of a poiccr and commandment of God to His ministers, as it is in the preface of this absolution. And as we read St. John xx., whosesoever sins ye remit the;/ are remitted. And if our confession be sarious 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 ; snd which is more, so sayc 3t. Chrysostom in his fifth Homily upon Isaiah ; ^leaven waits and expects the priesCs sentence here on earth; and the Lord follows the servant, and what the savant rightly binds or looses here on earth, that the Lord confirms in hea\ en. The same says St. Gregory, Horn. 20, 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 sick : but above all, holy scripture is clear, St. John xx., 23, Whosesoever sins ye 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 ; ■■!■ !5H. •J, «,L 5Q as neccdsary now, as it was then, and therefore to continue as long as the ministry of reconoiliatiou ; that is, to the end of the world, Eph. iv., 12, 13. When tb.i elore the priest absolves, God absolves, if we be truly penitent." Bishop Svnvrow (died 1685). Rationale on the Common Prayer, pp. 11, 12. And again : " After the priest hath pronounced the absolution, the Church seasonably prays. Wherefore we beseech him to grant us true repentance, and his holy Spirit, ^*c. For as repentance is a r cessary disposition to pardon, so as that neither Ood will nor man can, absolve 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 continua'.. For whereas repentance consists of three parts, as the Church teacher 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 oe 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 ; as first, because imme- diPtely 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 trespasses, 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 God's Holy Spirit enabling us thereunto. Again, repentance in this part of it, viz., 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 God's Holy Spirit, that both his present service and future life may please God ; 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 tvoise thing happen to h.r,, St. John, v. 14. Ibid, pp. 13, 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 approach of death; wherefore the church hath taken great care that the minister shall attend, and how he shall behave himself it 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 science troubled, and being observant of the method prescribed, desire to malio 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." Bishop Pearson, Minor Theological Works, vol. II., p. 237, Oxford, 1844. In tlie convocation of 1711-12, a sermon was preached by 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 licads 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 oi sins to the penitent in his name, which declaration and pronunciation is efiFectual to the remission of sins, Christ having promised that, whosesoever sins they remit, they are remitted. For since the priest actr^ but by commission, that is by a dele- gated power, in this oase, ho cannot pardon in his own name, but in God's name only. The panlon is (iod's, and the priest's part is to declare and pronounce it ; and what ho dv _- thug 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." Brett's doctrine of Remission of Sins explained and vindicated, London,ni2. I i| '::j »' But, lastly, the persons to whom tliis absHution must be pronounced, is another convincing proof that it is more than merely declarative. For if it implied no more than '■hat all sinners are pardoned by God upon their repentance ; it might as well be rironouncod to sucli as continue in their sins, as to those that have repented .>f 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; churcli de:iires should repent, but to those who Aaue 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 penitent, t. «., to those who are penitent at the time of pronouncing the abso- lution. For a8 to those who are impenitent, the priest is not here said to have any pc ' o. ^^ commandment relating to them ; they are quite left out, as persons not (H or proper to have this commission executed in their behalf. From all wb'ch it is plain, that this absolutioa is more than declarative, that it i'' tro'y effective; insuring and conveying to the proper subjec's thereof ♦he very absolutioc or remission itself. It is as much a bringing of Qod's 1 :.;uon to the penitent member of Christ's church, and as effectual to his prcs at benefit, as an authorised messenger bringing a pardon from his sovereigfi t'.- 5 : demned penitent criminal, is effectual to his present par- don and reioise from the before appointed punishment." Wheutly (1686-1742) on the Book of Commo- Prayer, page 118, Oxford, 1839. " And hath gi' rsn power and commandment to His ministers.] — Whoever hath a jupt 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, Matt, xxviii., tilt. viz. : the Apostles avd their successors, who are his embassadors, 2 Cor. v. 20, his ministers and stewards of divine mysteries, 1 Cor. iv., 1 ; nay, the presidnnts 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, aid especially to bring this pardon to the penitent, yea to rroclaim it even to the impenitent. Whcreforb lel, 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 hfs hands; and should not we shew as much reverence and joy upon the news of a greater absolution; as that (a) learneo' 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 bauds of his (i) brother Profes- sor, who at his earnest request had absolved him." Dean Comber {died 1178). Companion to the Temple, parti,, page A%, London, 1684, The above extract, as will be seen, relates to the form of absolution in Morning and Evening Prayer ; the next two, (o) Dr, KeynoldF. (6) Dr. Holland. ;),;- 50 from the same author, relate to the forms in the Communion Service, and in the Visitation of the Sick, respectively. " You have said with David, We have sinned, wherefore God hath sent hia minister like another Nathan, to assure you, that, lie 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 aJso/u- 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 judgmmt 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 III., page 96. "FHrst, in the deprecatory part wo 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 them, 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 ; God will not forgive any without faith and repentance, and we must not pretend to be greater than He ; wo 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 petii'.on itself, viz., that Jesus will [forgive him his oflfences] 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 exercise our 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 ""' -"c ot relates to the " sealing of the remia^ aion in the receiK.v* :: the Holy Communion :" w 111 60 "Whe>eforo in this sacrament, — if it be rightly received with :* true faith, — we be assured that our sins be forgiven, and tlio league of peace and the testament of God is confirmed between Ilim 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 ?" Cranmcr'a Remains by Jenkyna, vol. II., p. d's tntrcij, and of the remismn of our tint, (which thing none other of our virtuea or works properly doth,) therefore scripture 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 justified, not caring how few good works we do, &c." Again, what does Bisbor. levfel say of the benefit of baptism ? "As for that M. Hardi./.g here iijuolioth as an error defended by certain, I know not by whom, that baptism givet/i 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 evermore 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, Defence of the Apology of the Church of England. Works, Vol r.,i>;). 37-8, 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 Ood that does it. ' Who can forgive sins but God only ?' We read that *it is God thatjustifieth.' ./u«tt/?catton of sinners comes to the same with remission : it is receiving them as just ; which amounts to acquitting or ab- solving them, in the Court of Heaven. For proof of this, I refer the reader to Bishop Bull's Uarmonia Apostolica, that I may not be tedious in a very olaiucase. The use I intend of the observation, with respect to our rresent subject, is, that if we are said to eat or drink in the Eucharist, the benefits of Christ's jyaMton (among which remission of sins is one) or if we at said to apply i\iow ben^ts, and of consequence that remission, to ourselv by faith, &c., all this is to be understood only of our receiving such rer a, and j^ar^am^ of those benefits, whicb it is God that grants and con) id who also, properly speaking, applies every benefit of that kind to the faith- ful communicant. 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 absolution or remUsion i. real and true, it is not an human absolution, but divine grant, transmitteu to us by the liands of men administering the ordi nances of God. God has sometimes sent His ezlraordinanj grants of that kind hy prophets and other offioovs extraordinanj ,- and we may do the like in a fixed and standing method by His ordinary oflBoers or ministers duly commissioned thereunto. But whoever ho be that brings the pardon, or who pursuant to commission notijies it to the party in solemn form, yet the pardon, if true, is the gift of God, and it is God alone or the Spirit of God, that applies it to the soul, and converts it to spiritual nutriment and increase. This I presume may bo looked upon as a ruled point, and needs not more words to prove it." Waterland. Works, Vol. i'V., page 6i2, 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 cfBcacy 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 wo may observe, that born again, in the second verse, is inter- preted of bapt'vn, (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 that faith is our instrument for recetftn^ justification, which is saying enough; still baptism must be God's instrument, ordinarily, for applying or eorferring it, in virtue of what our Lord Himself, in that place, has twice solemily declared." Ibid, p. 11. f i I !' "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, hia instrument of Justification granted him from above: neither was he Justified till he received that divine teal, in as much as his sins ^rero upon him till that very time" Ibid, pp. 11-12. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /.Q ^4^ u ^ 1.0 I.I ■so ""^" 2.5 2.2 ^ 1^ IIIIIM 1.8 111.25 ^ 1^ < 6" ► '/ Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 V ;V ■6^ <> u^ LV ^ O^ '% 5? ..w r, 64 M [r J 1', hi 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 sacraments) 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, ^hereunto is annexed the promise of free foTgiveness 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 Testament, it hath not this promise an- nexed and tied to the visible si«'n, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible signs iu baptism and the Lord's Supper are : and therefore absolution is no such sacrament as baptism and the communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath his visible sign and promise ; yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as baptism and the communion are. But in a general acception, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to any thing whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding 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 the seven sacraments, but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such 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 bof^ places maketh mention ex- pressly of two, the sacrament of baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. And although there are retained by the order of the Church of En{|land, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies about the institution of ministers in the church, matrimony, confirmation of children, by examin- ing them of their knowledge in the articles of the faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the church for them, and likewise for the visitation of the sick ; 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 either for godly states of life necessary in Christ's Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity, by the ministry of the church, or else judged to be such ordinances as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ's Church." Homily of the Common Prayer and Sacraments, pp. 880-1, Oxford, 1822. 65 '* Howbeit we will not greatly Btrive for the name. It appeareth hereby, that many things, that indeed and by special property be no laeramenti, may nevertheless pass under the general name of a sacrament. But thus we say : It cannot be proved, neither by the scripturet nor by the ancient leamrd fathtrs, that this number of sacraments is so specially appointed, and conse- crate to thi8 purpose, or that there be neither more nor less lacramentt in the church, but only seven." Bishop Jewel. Works, vol. V.,p. 27, Oxford, 1848. The following extract from Archbishop Bramhall, relates to Orders : " These grounds are over-weighty to be counterbalanced by the tradition of the Patine and of the Chalice, an upstart custom or innovation, confirmed but the other day by the decree of Eugenius the Fourth ; » time too late in conscience for introducing either a double matter and form, or a new mat. ter and form, of that, which is acknowledged by them, and not denied by vi 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, &o. But of this kind, wherein all men to whom Christianity is re- vealed, or that expect salvation from Christ, should think themselves concerned to which all Christians are strictly obliged, ho far as not to neglect them wil- fully, or to omit them when they may oe had ; of this kind, I say, there be only two." Hammond. Practical Catechism, Oxford, 1847, p. 346. " The word sacrament was used by the ancient writers of the Church, for any sacred or holy mystery, rite, 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 be called sacraments ; but how many sacraments hath Christ ordained, and that too in his church, to be always observed there ? " Of such sacraments there be two, and two only, as generally necessary to salvation. There may be other things ordained, but not as necessary to salvation ; some as necessary to salvation, but not generally. As the ordina . tionor consecration of persons to holy offices. This is necessary to salvation, because it is necessary to the right administration of the means of grace auu salvation. But it is not generally necessary : it is not necessary for all men ; as if none could be saved except they be in holy orders. And therefore neither can that be said to be ordained 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." Beveridge'a Works, vol. I, pp. 100-101, London, 1824. 9 [4! \ ' I » , ) ''J 66 " Q. Wliy are these two sacraments generally neceuary to talvation f "A. Because vithout God's grace we cannot be saved, {Ephei. ii., 8.) and Qod hath determined to give his grace to those only who seek it in the devout use of these sacraments, where Hia providence affords them, fiy which saoramentb we bind ourselves to be God's faithful servants, and God obligeth himself to give us all graces necessary to fit us for heaven." Bp. Wilson's Works, vol. 1 F., p. 80, Oxford, 1851. JDr. Nieholls (1664-1712) Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer. " Generally necessary.] — By generally necessary we understand that «U 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 j^ledge deposited in a sacred place ; some- times an oath, the most sacrei'' " obligations ; and especially that oath of fidelity which the soldiery to their general. In scripture it is not used at all. By the early writers c( .ite 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 siyht appeared. But afterwards a more confined use of the word prevailed by degrees ; and in that stricter sense, which hr.tb long been the common one, and which our catechiEm follows, the natute of a sacrament comprehends the following particulars." Archbishop Seeker {died 1768) Works, vol. VI., page 343-4, London, 1825 » These testimonies fully meet every objection which the JBishop has raised; indeed every charge which has been brought against my teaching under this head might be brought against the passage adduced from Bishop Beveridge. « It will be seen, from my former letter, that in my manu- script I explain " generally necessary" as meaning " neces" sary for all men," and that I do not use the word "universally,' to which the Bishop has appended two notes of admiration observing afterwards, " neither does our Church trifle with her members by using the word * generally' when she intended to express * universally.' '' I do not consider the two words to be absolutely synony- mous ; 'generally,' no doubt, is more consistent with the tacit admission of the undoubted truth, that God does not tie Himself to those sacraments to which He has tied us. 67 The Bishop of Huron marks by italics, as containing noxi- iou8 teaching, the following words : " 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 chan- nels in which his grace flows to us." [Laud.) I do not know that these words are any where to be found in the writings of Archbishop Laud. I have no doubt that their substance is to be found not only in his writint^s, but in those of most of our groat divines. For the present I will quote in defence of a statement, which t should have thought to be in need of no defence, the following passage from Arch- bishop Seeker : "Not only signs of grace, but means also whereby we receive the same, Non but our blessed Lord could appoint such means ; and which of hia or- dinances should be such, and which not, none but himself could determine. From his word therefore we are to learn it, and then, as we hope to attain the end, we must use the means. But when it is said that the sacraments are means of grace, we are not to understand, either that the performance of the mere outward action doth, by its own virtue, produce a spiritual effect in us ; nor that God hath annexed any such effect to that alone ; but that he will accompany the action with his blessing, provided it be done as it ought, with those qualifications which he requires. And therefore, unless we fulfil the condition, we must not expect the benefit. Further, calling the sacraments means of grace, doth not signify them to be means by which we merit grace; for nothing but the sufferings of our blessed 'Saviour can do that for us ; but means, by which what he hath merited, is conveyed to us." ' »" Archbishop Seeker. Works, vol. VI., pp. 345, London, 1826. The Bishop of Huron seems much alarmed at my having been reported to have said there were " outward signs in mat- rimony," and he contrasts this statement with the language of the -XXVth. Article respecting the five sacraments of the Romish Church — " They have not any visible sign or cere- mony ordained of God." A sign is not necessarily a sign ordained of Cf-od, and although matrimony has not the latter, it may have the former ; and I would humbly submit that when our service speaks of the " ring given and received " as being " a token and pledge,'' it comes at least very near the statement to which the Bishop objects. I do not doubt that, in my teaching on this head, I endeavored to illustrate H fl t i w If' the distinction between matrimony and a sacrament, by showing that its signs could not possibly be regarded as signs of inward and spiritual grace. The Bishop next observes on confirmation, marking the words "confirmation was, in early times, pfirt of the sacra- ment of baptism." My object was, in every instance, to show, that the holy rite, to which the Romish Church gives the name of a sacrament, does not come up to the full defini- tion of a sacrament ; and I believe that the authorities, which I proceed to quote, will bear me out in the instance of con- firmation. I should explain, that when I speak of it as hav- ing been a part of baptism, I do not mean an essential part, but a separable ceremony, like the use of the sign of the cross at present, though far more important; but still, a complement of baptism, which, being separated from it, could not, pos- sibly, by that separation, be elevated to the dignity of a sacramenj. If, in our account of this sacred rite, we are to be tied to the very letter of the XXVth Article, we shall probably find some difficulty as churchmen in defining confirmation either as a rite " which has grown of the corrtipt following of the Apostles," or as "a state of life allowed in the scriptures." We might probably define it better, in the language of the Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments, as "a godly state of life, necessary in the Church of Christ ;" though I scarcely think that this would be a satisfactory mode of marking the difierence between it and the great sacraments of the gospel. " The oauae of seTering confirmation from baptism {for mott eommonljf they went together) was sometimes in the minister, which being of inferior degree might baptise but not confirm, as in their case it came to pass whom Peter and John did confirm, whereas Philip had before baptized them." Booker's Worke, book V., ch. 66, section 5, vol. II,,page 841 of Keble's Edition. '•".-. i ■ ■ " As first, for confirmation, which we confess was a custom anciently used in the church of Christ, and still ought to be retained, even for chil- dren after baptism to be offered to the bishop, that they might receive the Holy Ghost by prayers and the laying on of hands. Bat some of the pa- pists themselves acknowledge, that this was never instituted and ordained 69 by Christ as the other sacraments were ; neither did the fathers use this as any distinct sacrament of itself, but as the perfection and eontummation of the Baerament of baptism ; and the chrism or ointment which they used, wot only a ceremony annexed to baptism aho, as the cross and other ceremonies were." Beveridgt's Works, vol. IX., pp. 462-463, London, 1824. The testimony of Bingham (1668—1723,) in hia Ecclesi- astical Antiquities, is far too long to be produced in full ; but every purpose will be answered by giving the headings of the first four sections of chapter I. of book XII, " Section I. — Confirmation anciently given immediately after baptism, if the bishop were present. "Section II. — And this as well to infants as adult persons; which is evidenced, first, from some plain testimonies. "Section III. — And, secondly, from the custom of giving the eucharist to infants for many ages. " Section IY. — Whence it appears, that confirmation was not esteemed a proper sacrament distinct from baptism." Bingham's Works, vol. IV., pp. 1-12, London, 1840. Near the close of section IV. Bingham uses these words : << So that when the ancients call confirmation < & sacrament,' they always mean apart or ceremony of the sacrament of baptism." VI. — Participation in the glorified humanity of our Lord by means of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Bishop next says that young men are instructed that " the recipient of the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper partakes of the * glorified humanity ' of the Son of .God." He omits the word ^'■faithful" before "recipient," which has been more correctly inserted by a graduate of Trinity Col- lege, in his letter in " The Globe" newspaper of the 11th of August. This is not my teaching, but the teaching of the Rev. Francis Procter, in his book on the Common Prayer. It is the teaching of a learned, thoughtful, devout, and cautious writer, who as little needs my defence, as he has cause to fear the attack which has been made upon him. Yet for the sake of the College and of the Church — for the sake of truth — I proceed to show that Mr. Procter's doc- ^ § m ^■ Mr 70 trine is the doctrine of our great divines, that they regard the "glorified humanity " of our Lord as the source from which all grace is immediately derived to man, and worthy partici- pation of the Lord's Supper as the appointed means of com- munion with that humanity. <* Having thus far proceeded in speech concerning the person of Jesus Christ, his two natures, their conjunction, that which he either is or doth in respect of both, and that which the one reoeiveth from the other ; sith God in Christ is generally the medicine which doth cure the world, and Carist in us is that receipt of the same medicine, whereby we are every one particularly cured, inasmuch as Christ's incarnation and passioa can be available to no man's good which is not made partaker of Christ, neither can we participate him without his presence, we are briefly to consider how Christ is present, to the end it may thereby better appear how we are made partakers of Christ both otherwise and in the sacraments themselves." Hooker. Eceleaiaalical Polity, V, 65. 1. * Tn i^ " The church is in Christ as Eve was in Adam. Yea, by grace we are every of us in Christ and in his Church, as 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 Aim even according to hit 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 restoraiioa 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 incorruption, and that immediately from his own person into all that belong unto him. As there- fore we ore 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 opeak of eternal life is but a dream. " That which quickeneth ut is the Spirit of the tecond Adam, and hitfleth that wherewith he quickeneth. 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 flesh, 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 ■ /. 71 sacrifice. Tho Wood of Christ, as the Apostle \ritne8seth, doth therefore take away sin, because, 'through the Eternal Spirit he oflfered himself unto God without spot.' That which sanctified our nature in Christ, that which made it a sacrifice available to take away sin, is the same which quickeneth 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 oor?ist in the participation of his spirit which Cyprian in that respect well termeth ffermanUrimam tocietaUm, the highest and truest society that can be between man and him, which is both Qod 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 ire by faith do depend as branches, and that neither his flesh nor our bodies are oomprieed in this resemblance. For doth any man doubt but that even/ro?n thefluh of Christ our very bodies 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 T 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 hindered the life of ours. Christ is there- fore both as God and as man, that true v' i' whereof we both spritually and corporally are branches. The mixture of lX''. bodily substance with ours is a thing which the ancient fathers disclaim. Yet the mixture of bis flesh with ours they speak of, to signify what our very bodies through mystical eon- junction receive from that vital efficacy which we know to be in 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. tm m\ " If then tho presence of Christ with them did so much move, judge what their thoughts and afi'ections were at the time of this new presentation of Christ, not before their eyes, but within their sculs. They had learned before that hia 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 thereirnto : 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 heaven 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 his divine benediction, they being the first that were commanded to receive f^om him, the first which were warranted by his promise that not only onto ■r,' 72 t I them at the proBont time but to whomBoever they and their sucoossors after them did duly administer the same, those mysteries should serve as condueli of life and eonveyaneti of his 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?" Ilocker, Ecclesiaiiieal Polity, V. 67, 4. ill- 'I 1 '''■ WW " This day verium caro 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?' 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 His flesh which He hath taken of us. It is most kindly to take part with Him in that which He took part in with us, and that, to no other end, but 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 ' contort humanoe naturoe,' so we by His might become contortei Diviroe nature, 'partakers of the Divine nature.' " Bithop Andrewea' Sermoni. lit Sermon on the Nativity, vol. I., p. 16* Ozford, 1841. " LaEtly, for sitting ; that is His Kingdom, that is kept for diet novitti- morum noviitimui, '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." Bithop Andrewet' Sermont, vol. I., page 116, Oxford,18il. " 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 efficacy which hit human nature, now exalted, hath in reipect of ut. These may not be measured, much less limited, by other men's most noble faculities or perfeo- tions. The most dull sight on earth may see as far as the sun or stars ; and the most quick 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 ware absolutely impossible to man, or any other creature endued with sight, we might not T ei de n henoe tbas collect, Ghrlit's glorifled eyes are human ejes, as oars are— created eyes as ours are, therefore he cannot with these bodily eyes look dowQ from hearen, and behold what is done, or liti hid in the most secret corners of the earth ; or that his faculty of hearing, because a created fac- ulty, cannot apprehend all the blasphemies or oaths, iron the most secret murmurings of his enemies, either against him or his 'church. Or admit- ting any saint's eyes, already glorifled in body in heaven, could by Tision of the dlTine 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 intollectlTe faculties were not able to distinguish betwixt eTvry 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 facuU.ies are but human (not divine) ; ergo, he cannot distinctly and infallibly judge or censure every thing be sees or hears, or Infallibly retain the records of his judgment or censure Inviolate and entire unto the day of judgment.' Bo>ind we are rather to believe, that Christ as man, or with his human eyes, soes all our wrongs, and as man hears all our prayers, and takes notice of til 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 fr jm ..he 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 pretence of Christ's body. Lather 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 hiehest heavens at the right hand of Qod. *»*♦***** «« 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 itselt, yet a fountain whereof we cannot drink, save as it is derived unto us through the human nature of Christ." Jackton's Works, vol. X.,pp. 34-!J6, Oxfvrd, 1844. ' 10 iij m r 74 f "In the next place, we are to beliere and acknowledge, that as Ood the Father doth neither forgive nor TouohHafe reconciliation, but for the mcrita and Batiafaotion of his only Son ; so neither will he Touchsafe to convey this or any other blessing unto us, which bis Son huth purchased for us, but enly through hit Son: not only through him iis our Advocate or Interoesson but through Ilim at our Mediator; that it through hit humanity, at the organ or conduit, or at the only bond, by which we are united and reconciled unto the Divine nature. For although the Holy Spirit, or third person in Trinity, 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 himtelf, but unto Chriit'i human nature," Jackion'i Workt, vol, Jr,,p.iO, Oxford, 1844. " Yet was it (it 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 Hit myitical and lupernatural union, we are at truly conjoined with Eim, at the meat and drink we take it with ut, when by the ordinary work of nature, il it converted into our own lubttance. Secondly, that this conjunction is imme- diately made with Hit 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 God-head, all life and grace is derived unto us." , Uther't Workt, vol. IV., p, 608, Dublin, 1681. " Certain, however, it is, that Bishop Cosin (with all our other learned and judicious divines) was zealous against 'he 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 tignified, the thing spiritually given and received by the faithful in the Eucharist. He was well aware how much depended upon that momenloua principle ; as well because it was the *afe, 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 baiit, which is this : that in the sacraments we are made and continued membert of Christ's Jorfy, of Aw Jteth and of hit bonet. Our union with the Deity rests entirely in our myttical union with our --ord's humanity, which is pertonally united with his Divine nature, which is ettentially 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 Qod the e merit* Dvey thii us, but erccBson the organ unto the Trinity, spiritual our souls 1844. mlBerably corrupted it by the wood, ha;/, anil itubble which they hare buitf upon it; namely, by a local presence, a literal exhibition, and an oral man- ducation, with other the like novel additions or defalcations." Waterland'i Worki,vol. V., p. 212, OT/ord, 1843. The following extracts from Bishop Ridley go more ex- pressly to show that the Humanity of our L-^rd is partici- pated by means of the Holy Communion : Now then you will sny, what kind of presence do tliey 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 ; tliat 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 tlie very body and blood of Christ, because it is united la 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 aa be, or shall be partakers thereof; that is, that to all that do believe on His name, which are not bom of blood, as St. John saitb, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but are bom of God, 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 's here present with us. Even as, for example, we say the same sun, which, in substance, never removeth his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams, light, and natural influence where it shineth upon the earth. For God's word and his sacraments be, as it were, the beams of Christ, which is Soljtutitioe, the sun of righteousness. Bishop RidUy'a TreatUe against Transubstantiation. Works. Parker's ^ Society, page 13. *< 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 substance 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 u« in the Lord's supper ; bygrace, 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 I'M I II :? .1 76 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 : "AUud preeterea caput controversam est de voce fpirituaUler, a qua multi abhorrent, quod putant imaginarium aliquid yel inane notari. Ergo hie etiam succurrat definitio necesse est. Spiritualis ergo manduoatio camali opponitur. Gamalis autem vocatur, qua putant quidam substanti- am ipsam Christi in nos transfundi, sicuti panis comeditur. Ex opposito autem dioitur spiritualiter nobis Christi corpus dari in Goena, quia facit arcana Spiritus sancti virtus, ut quae locorum spatio distant, inter se uniantur : ac proinde ut h coelo ad nos penotret vita ex oarne Christi, quse vis et faottltas Tivificandi non incommode abstractum aliquid a substantia dioi posset, modo sane hoc et dextre intelligatur, manere scilicet in ocelo Christi corpus, et tamen ad nos qui in terrS, perigrinamur, vitam ex eju3 substantia manare uc 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 then 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 Spirit occasions that things, which are locally distant, are united with each other, 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 (abttraetum) from the substance, provided that this be 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 Can&, Opera, vol. VIII., p. 744, Amstelodami, 1567. 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 «ense, 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 orally 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 th:: " 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 21st. The writer, treating at some length of the passage in Mr. Proc- ter's book, to which the Bishop refers, uses the following words : " In 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, hy the power of JSis Spirit, 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 a 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 import of ix Hi- ^1 liU h I 1:1 78 St. Paul's strong 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 the truth of the agency of the Spirit, and the truth of our participation of Christ : "That which quickmeth us is the spirit of the second Adam, and hit flesh that wherewith he quickeneth us." The same doctrine is clearly taught 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 work faith and other spiritual graces in our souls, yet doth he not by these spiritual graces unite our souls or spirits imme- diately unto himself, but unto Christ's human nature r Words to the same effect will be found in the following passage from Calvin. The whole passage relates to the gen- eral question under consideration, the words which appear in italics to this special point : "Dico igitur, in Coenee mysterio per symbola panis et vini, Christum vero nobis exhiberi, adeoque corpus et sanguinem ejus, in quibus omnem obedi- entiam pro comparanda nobis justitia adimplevit : quo scilicet primum in unum corpus cum ipso ooalescamus; deinde participes substantiee ejus facti, in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentiamus. — Siquidem ut finitum esse, pro perpetua corporis humaui ratione, minime ambigimus, coeloque contineri quo semel receptum est, donee ad judicium redeat ; ita sub hsec corruptibilia elementa retrahere ipsum, aut ubique preesens imaginari, prorsus ducimus nefas esse. Neque id sane opus est, quo ipsiuB participatione fruamur : quando hoc beneficii per spiritum suum nobis Dominus largitur, ut unum corpore, Spiritu et animd seeumfiamus. Vin- culum ergo istius conjunctionis est Spiritus Christi, cujus nezu oopulamur ; et quidam veluti canalis, per quern quicquid Chrisius ipse et est et habet, ad nos derivatur. Nam si Solem conspicimus radiis in terram emicantem, ad generandos, fovendos, vegetandos ejus foetus suam quodammodo substantiam ad earn trajioere ; cur inferior Spiritus Christi esset irradiatio ad communi- onem camis et sanguinis ejus in nos traducendam ? Quapropter Scriptura ubi de nostra cum Christo participatione loquitur, vim ejus universam ad Spiritum refert. Pro multis tamen unus locus sufficiet. Paulus enim ad Bomanos, capite octavo, Christum non aliter in nobis quam per Spiritum suum habitare dissent ; quo tamen illam de qua nunc sermo est camit et tan- gumitcommunionem non tollitf ted ab uno Spiritu effici docet, ut toium Chrittum 79 poiBideamui tt habeamui in nobis manentem." " I say therefore that ia the mystery of the Supper by the symbols of bread and wine Christ is truly ex- hibited to us, and indeed his body and blood, in which he fulfilled all obedi- ence for the purpose of providing for us righteousness, in order, that is to say, that first of all we may be united into one body with himself, next that being made partakers of his substance, we might also experience his virtue (or energy) in the communication of all good things. * * * Inasmuch as we doubt not at all that (his body) agreeably to the invariable condition of a human body, is limited, and is contained in heaven whither it was once for all received, until it return to judgment ; even so to draw it back again under these perishable elements, or to imagine that it is every- where present, we hold to be absolutely unlawful. Nor is there indeed any need of this, in order to our enjoying participation of him, since the Lord be- stows upon us through his spirit this benefit, that we should be made one with himself, in body, soul, and spirit. The bond, then, of this union is the spirit of Christ, by whose tie we are connected ; and which is a kind of conduit through which whatsoever Christ himself both is and has is derived to us. For if we see the sun, darting forth to the earth with his rays, transmit in a manner his substance to it to generate, cherish and invigorate its products ; why should the irradiation of the spirit of Christ be less efTectual to transmit to us the communion of his flesh and blood ? Wherefore the scripture, where it speaks of our participation with Christ, refers its whole efficacy to the spirit. One passage will suffice for many. For St. Paul in the 8th chapter to the Romans, says that Christ dwells in us no otherwise than by his spirit, by which statement however he does not set aside that communion of his flesh and blood of which we are now speaking, but teaches us that it is effected by the spirit alone that we should possess Christ in his entirety and have him remain- ing in us." Joan. Calvin. Institutionum Liber IV., cap, XVII., 11, 12. Optra, vol. IJT., pp. ZQl-S, Amstelodami,l&67. m I cannot forbear, at the risk of tediousness, from citing the following very pertinent passage from Waterland, with which I conclude : «« There was a further use made of both sacraments, by way of argument, in the Arian controversy. For when the Arians pleaded, that the words I and my father are one, meant no more than an unity of will or consent, inas- much as all the faithful were said to be one with Christ and with each other, on account of such unity of consent ; the argument was retorted upon them in this manner. That as Christ had made himself really one with us by tak- ing oMX flesh and blood upon him in the incarnation ; so again he had recip- rocally m^de us really one with himself by the two sacraments. For in Baptism we put on Christ, and in the Eucharist we are made partakers of his fksh and blood: and therefore the union of Christ's disciples with the Head, and with each other, (though far short of the essential union between Father and Son,) was more than a bare unity of will or consent; being a I M ;!v ■!-:'i' 80 real and viVaZ and subttantial union, though withal myttical and spiritual. — Thus Hilary of Foiotiers (an eminent Father of that time) retorted the argu- ment of the adversaries ; throwing off their refined subtilties, by one plain and affecting consideration, drawn from the Icnown doctrine of the Christian Sacraments-" Waierland. Works, vol. V., page 118, Oxford, ISiS. VII. — Application of the Language of the sixth Chapter of St. John. 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 afterwards, 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 assures us 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 we receive the indispen- sable spiritual benefit, or perform the indispensable spiritual act. At all events, the quotations given below will vindicate me from any grievous 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 and sacramental manducation are not opposite or incom- patible but mutually subordinate. « The sacramental and mystical bread being broken and distributed after the institution of Christ, and the mystioal wine being likewise taken and 81 received, be not only sacraments of the flesh of Christ wounded for us and of his blood-shedding, but also be most certain sacraments for ns, 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. Moreover 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 futhful be replenished with unspeakable joy, and be corroborated and strengthened unto all works of godliness. We are many, (saith St. Paul,) one bread and one body, all w» 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, thii m my blood. And, lam the living bread which came down from heaven. He that eateth me thall alto live for ever. Not at your fathert did eat manna in the detert, and are dead. He that eateth me ihatl alto live for ever." John, vi. DitpiUationt of ArcMnthop Cranmer at Oxford. Fox's Acti and Monummtt, vol. III., page 39, London, 1634. " The grace which we have by the holy Eucharist doth not bej^n 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 necessity 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 neither body nor 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. , III <' This 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 futh and obedience ; s near conformity to Him in mind and affection ; an inseparable coi^unotion with Him, by the strictest bonds of 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 being taken in soon becomes united to us, assimilated :ind converted into our substance, thereby renewing our strength, and repairing the decays of our nature ; wherefore ' He,' saith our Saviour, ' that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him ;' and, * The cup of blessing,' saith St. Paul, ' which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ V We in the outward action partake of the symbols representing our Saviour's body and blood ; we in the spiritual intention 11 B I il, oommtiniMte of His very person, being (according to the manner insinuated) intimately united to him." Dr. Barrow. ('1630-1677J Quoted by Brogdm. Illustrations of the Liturgy and Ritual, vol. II., pp. 8-9, London, 1842. <' I have elsevhere shewed at large, that our Saviour's discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, was by Him meant of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in the Eucharist ; and that therefore when He says, < Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you,' He makes the receiving of this sacrament necessary to all who are capable of receiving it. It is true, nono do, spiritually, and to their own benefit, eat the flesh of Christ, but they who receive it with faith and love and thankfulness, and other holy dispositions, and especially with a sincere resolution of living in all respects as becomes the Gospel of Christ ; and therefore, when Christ does so expressly require His disciples to eat His flesh. He at the same time requires us to clothe ourselves with all those virtues and graces which are necessary to this end. Therefore it is not a mere outward formality, upon which our Saviour there doth so earnestly insist, but eating and drinking the outward symbols with that preparation and devotion of mind, which befits so solemn and Divine an institution; and since our Saviour has laid so great a stress on this duty, when performed in a proper manner, it certainly becomes all humble Christians to submit their judgment to His." Johnson's Theological Works, vol. II., p. 12§, Oxford, 1847. « The particular benefits are here expressed in the words of Christ, John vi. 64, 55 and 56, in that mystical sermon wherein He did secretly prepare the minds of his disciples for this sacrament, shortly to be instituted, and clearly alludes to the same : the first benefit is the spiritual eating Christ's body and blood. For the humble sinner believing in the incarnation, death and passion of Jesus, and receiving this bread and wine, in token that God hath given Him for his sins, and that he doth rely on Him as his only Re- deemer ; this doth convey to such a penitent believer, all the benefits of the birth and the death of Jesus, and as the bread and wine being received do communicate to us all the strength and comfort that they contain, so the worthy receiver by apprehending and embracing a crucified Saviour, draws persuasions of his pardon, and encouragement to his graces, and so hath spiritually eat the flesh, and drunk the blood of Christ." Comber, Companion to the AUar, page 171, London, 1686. The passage occurs in his comment on the words of the Exhortation, " For then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood." From Ford's ComvmUary on St. John vi., 54, p. 229-30, London, 1862. " That this is to be understood of the Eucharist, is very plain to me, as our blefsed Saviour, in this passage, four times repeats the distinction be- 83 tween His flesh and blood, and between eating and drinking, which strongly implies some distinction of ideas, not only in the things receiyed, but in the acts of receiving. Now this distinction, as to the present passage, is found 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. 68.) transubstantiation, or the literal construction of the terms 'flesh and blood,' is as clearly pre- cluded. It it the Spirit that quiekeneth, 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. Skeltan, ^1707-1787,; Senilia, 6». 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 other 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 sacrifice-feast, one may be said to eat the body of Christ. Whether John vi. relate) to the Lord's Supper has been disputed. I think Bishop Cleaver proves that it does as a prophetic intimation; but we are sure that many people have so understood it; and so probably did they who compiled our article. Li that chapter something is meant which is not intended to be expressed with perfect clearness. It may, as a prophetic in- timation, be interpreted by the institution of the sacrament, as an event, and by a oomparisoa of Christ's reasoning in the sixth chapter, about the Lord's Supper, with his reasoning to Nicodemus in the third, about Baptism." Dr. Hey's Lectures on DivvnUy, p.p., 650-1, Cambridge, 1841. "If then we rightly interpret the text, the assistances of the Spirit are directly annexed to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But the sanotifi- oation of the Spirit supposes redemption or pardon, which therefore might also from this chapter be proved a benefit consequent upon this ordinance. But as these proofs maybe more obviously and simply deduced from the word^ of institution, and from the nature of the rite itself, I shall not insist T A li^v fH ■l 1 %h ■'■■ f-iS' I 84 at large upon the argument, but content myself rather vith 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 which the notion of spiritual manduoation is un- founded, and the passage both to Jew and Christian inexplicable ; in opposi- tion to those, who consider the Lord's Supper simply as a remembrance of hia 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." BU?u>p Cleaver'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 are employed. I must, however, notice the Bishop's closing paragraph. It is as follows : « I cannot, therefore, think it sound divinity or good protestantism to teach that in the uxth 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 to " the oral 85 deception of the elementB," 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? •if'ij-i.4lv'; \ lo^rer, for .crengtbening and refreshing of the soul, which ( . *''..{ 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 ot a 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 au 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 aubstanoe, or even of any mysterious supernatural virtue. And it is no slight objection to the supposition of such an a^unot, that a stupendous miracle woold be wrought without any assignable object. Where there is such a real pres- ence, nothing more can be aeeded 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. Bat with respect to both, we may say that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, that is, in the celebration of the Lord's Sapper. And as the consecrated elements are the instrument by which this piesence operates in the worthy receiver, it might have been Bud — 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 at the end of the firit Book of Homillei. But it oawot now be uied either wliely or innocently by a divine of the Church of England, beoauae it U a phrase which must scandalize or mislead, uutll it la explained- and when explained according to her doctrine, is found to siRnify somothlng'w: t, would have been more properly oxprossod In different words. Such a presence Is, In the highest sense of th word, to the full as mu as that which, -n the Romish and Lutheran systems and apparently according to the view of the author whose propositions ha- been recently condemned is held to bo lodged In the sacramenUl symboU, Uoujrh not so as to render them the more certainly effeotlye for any benafioii. l operation. It Is there fore a mere polemical artifice to allege that one ho rejects all those sys- tems is opposed to the doctrine of a real presence i the Eucharist ; and I do not know that there is any other ground for the assertion, that there ure ministers of our Church who deny it altogether. But I am not sure tbat all pay sufficient attention, or attach due importan je to this part of he truth. And it would not besurprlslng if many, recoiUng with just averstion from the innoTations which have been lately atte.np .ed in the language, if not in the essential doctrines, of the Church on this li ad, should hare fallen into the opposite extreme, and have lost sight of whai I will venture to call the objective reality in the sacrament. It may bo that they hold rightly, that the simple sign is suffioient as the divinely appoin-.ed instrument, and a suitable frame of mind in the receiver as the requisite condition, of the benefit to be conveyed ; but that they are apt to overh ^k the necessity for something beside the instrument and the condition, wh h is more indispen- sable than either ; namely, the presence, the power, ae spiritual agency, by which the instrument is effectually applied. The pr ctioal tendency of this oversight is, to rob the sacrament of its specific l uaraoter, to reduce it to a mere form of prayer or mode of preaching ; virtually to contradict the teaching of the Church in her Articles, and to divest the language of her Liturgy of all its propriety and significance. It is true tbat all sacred ordi- nances have a common end, and that the efficacy of all depends on their common author. But it does not follow that all are of equal dignity or value. And if there is a point on which 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 and transoendant 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 carious speoola- tioo, but for the exercise of pious meditation and devotional feeling ; and it ia 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, dc, by the Bithop of St. Davii'i, pp. 87-43, London, 1867. 12 I, 90 • h^ ir'i ■I' I; "m m^ WMi 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 novelties, 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 have been maintained of late years by a certain class of divines, whose teaching 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 form, 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 91 )oints by the ichi who consider the epithet to be invariably applicable to authorities cited by an opponent. One necessary consequence of thus giving my authorities 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 simpli/ at authorities on the main point in question, without pledging myself to the approval of all their arguments or modes of expression. I must also advert to a subject on which J touched briefly in my former letter. I expect to hear it said, " How very unneceisary all these discussions," "might not a few modi- fications remove every diflficulty ?" 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 this 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," viz., 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 the 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 con- , 1 1 ■i'l r i If I?' M Hi- i 1:1 m 92 sent 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, we must be prepared to admit that an Index Expurgatorius is 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 tba 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 probable 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 of the invocation of saints ; and the natural result will be, that, ly 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 of 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, and of winning those who are blinded by prejudice. I fear that some, who 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 I' ' . ■'. ;tr- 'V't I 11 } i •!.: 84 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 afTections. IV. 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 execute the office of a priest in the church of God. What mean these words, or are they " idle" words : " Whose aina 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 ihey 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 ourselvos down in the house, not of Rimmon, but of God ; and to be branded as faithless to the most sacred 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- science, to attach a non-natural sense to that article of our Creed, which we as ministers, and the people with us, solemnly confess whenever our Communion Service is read, '' I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins ?" Y. 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 : 95 •' He 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 of our Church " If I could not accept the teaching of the Baptismal Service and of the Catechism in its plain and obvious sense, I would 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 views ; but I admit that 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 awajfy but also from those who would unduly explain it. Their zeal for a high and heavenly truth does, as I think, really^ 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 bitter resvjlts of which . I ■w f 1:1 m t jij i; 90 the Church in this province will probably suffer for years to come ; and, having 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 been 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, or 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. XOVSKLL AND KLUI, PRINTERS, KINO SIREBI, TORONTO. THE PROVOST'S THIRD LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF TORONTO. My Lord, I find myself under the necessity of troubling your Lord- ship with a short communication, which I wish to be regarded as a postscript to my second letter. The Bishop of Huron states in his letter to the members of the Executive Committee of his Synod that he has heard, when examining graduates of Trinity College, that I have said that "justification was an impertinent subject to intro- duce before a congregation, as there was not one man in ten thousand who was not already justified." Being conscious that I had never brought such a statement before the stu- dents I gave the charge a flat denial in my first letter. In the second I suggested a remark on which another charge might have been, however unjustly, grounded ; but I could recollect, at that time, nothing which could have served as a basis for this. I found, however, yesterday, in Waterland (Vol. vi. p. 32, Oxford, 1843) a passage, which I have read in my class, and which no doubt gave occasion to the charge : Dr. Waterland's words are " Some will plead, that man is utterly unable to do good works before he is justified and regenerated : they should rather say before he receives grace ; for that is the real and the full truth. But what occasion or need is there for disturbing common Christians at all with points of this nature now ? Are we not all of us, or nearly all, (ten thousand to one,) baptized in infancy, and therefore regenerated and justified of course, and thereby prepared for good works, as soon as capable of them by our years ? Good works must, in this case at least, (which is our case,) follow after justification and regenera- tion, if they are at all ; and therefore how impertinent and 3a tt frivolous is it, if not hurtful rather, to amuse the ignorant with such notions, which, in our circumstances, may much better be spared ?" Observe 1st. That the words are not mine but Dr. Water- land's, read at the time from his book. 2nd. That the word "impertinent" in his writings, as those of a grave and intelligent author, signifies " out of place," unsuitable to the subject. 3rd. That the writer, himself composing a treatise on jus- tification, docs not say that it is an impertinent subject to introduce before a congregation, but that, under the circum- stances which then existed, (they can hardly be said to exist among ourselves,) it was impertinent, or rather hurtful, to amuse the ignorant with the notion that man cannot do good works before he is justified and regenerated. His meaning evidently is that it is injudicious and hurtful to lead the bulk of a christian congregation to consider that they are lying under an incapacity to perform good works, and that he would rather have them taught as those " which have be- lieved in God" that they should " be careful to maintain" them. (Titus iii. 8.) 4th. Dr. Waterland does not say that " there is not one man in ten thousand who is not already justified." He says " are we not all of us, or nearly all, (ten thousand to one,) baptized in infancy ; and therefore regenerated and justified of course." I do not expect that his teaching, any more than that of the Prayer-book, will escape reprobation ; but at all events he speaks with reverence ; he distinguishes between the ministration of the external rite, and the recep- tion of the inward grace, and makes the former, not the latter, the subject of his numerical calculation. I have given this, perhaps superfluous, explanation, first for my own sake, because if there is one error of which more than of another I would carefully avoid the appear- ance, it is that of disguising in any degree what I teach, or what I believe ; and secondly, for the sake of the Bishop of Huron's informant, whom I would not wilfully suffer to lie under the imputation of having stated what was a pure fab- ricatioi having sented 1 Ti # to d lU rication ; it is quite sufficient that he should be conscious of having so miserably misunderstood, or so grossly misrepre- sented, what he heard. I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's obliged and faithful Servant, GEORGE WHITAKER. Trinity College, Nov. 13th, 1860.