IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) **- 1.0 1.1 £ 1^ 12.0 IIL25 1 1.4 lli& 1.6 23 VMIT mm sTMn wnni>«N.T. (7U)t7»4i«l CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Instituta iur Hiatcrical Microraproductiont / Inatitut Canadian da nticroraproductiona historiquaa Tachnioai and Bibliographic Notaa/Nota» tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tl ta Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat originai copy avaiiabia for fiiming. Faaturaa of this copy which may ba bibiiographicaliy uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproductlon. or which may significantly ohanga tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaeicad baiow. D D D D D D Colourad covers/ Couvartura da couiaur r~1 Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagte Covars rastorad and/or lamlnatad/ Couvartura rastaurte at/ou palllculAa I I Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua Colourad maps/ Cartas gtegraphiques an couiaur Colourad ink (l.a. othar than biua or black)/ Encra da couiaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) Colourad piatas and/or iliuatrationa/ Planchaa at/ou iliuatrationa an couiaur Bound with othar matarial/ RaliA avac d'autraa documanta Tight binding may cauaa ahadowa or distortion along interior margin/ Laraiiura aarrte paut cauaar da i'ombra ou da la diatortion la long da la marga IntArlaura Blank iaavaa addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poaaibia, thaaa hava baan omittad from filming/ 11 aa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajouttea lora d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dana la taxta, maia, loraqua cala 4tait poaaibia, caa pagaa n'ont paa At* f ilmtoa. Additional commanta:/ Commantairaa auppldmantairaa: L'inatltut a microfilm* la maillaur axamplaira qu'il iul a *t* posslbia da aa (irocurar. Las ditaiis da cat axamplaira qui sont paut*Atra uniquaa du point da vua bibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifiar una imaga raprodutta, ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dana la mithoda norinala da fllmaga sont Indiqute ci-daaaoua. D D D D D D n Colourad pagaa/ Pagaa da couiaur Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommag*aa Pagaa raatorad and/or lamlnatad/ Pagaa raataurMa at/ou paliicul*aa Pagaa diacoiourad, stainad or f oxad/ Pagaa d*color*aa, tachatiaa ou piquAaa Pagaa datachad/ Pagaa dAtachtoa Showthrough/ Tranaparanca Quality of print variaa/ QualM InAgala da i'lmpraaaion inciudaa auppkimantary matarial/ Compraiid du material auppWmantaira Only adition avaiiabia/ Sauta MHIon dteponibia Pagaa wholly or partially obacurad by arrata aiipa, tiaauaa, ate, hava baan rafilmad to anaura tha baat poaaibia imaga/ Laa pagaa totalamant ou partiailamant obacureiaa par un fouillat d'arrata, una palura, ate, ont At* fllm*aa * nouvaau da fa9on * obtanir la maillaura imaga po«9ibla. Tl P< o1 fll O b( til si ot fll si Ol Tl si Tl VM M dl ai bi rii rt n\ TMa itam la filmad at tha raduction ratio chackad balow/ Ca documant aat fHm* au taux da r*ductlon bidiqu* cl-daaaoua 10X 14X 18X 22X 28X 30X X •[., 12X 18X aDX 24X 2IX fix '^^W Tlw copy film«d h«r« hM b««n r«produo«d thanks to tho gonoroshy of: Library of tho Public Archivot of Canada L'axamplaira film* fut raproduit grica A la OAnAroaitA da: La bibliothAqua das Archivaa publiquas du Canada Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality poaalbia considering tha condition and laglbility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spaclfications. Original coplaa in printad papar covara ara fllntad beginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impras- sion, or tha back covar whan approprlata. All othar original coplaa ara filmad beginning on tha first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- sion, and anding on tha last pafia with a printad or illuatratad Impraasion. Tha last racordad frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — «>- (meening "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Lea imagea suivantea ont 4t4 reproduites evoc le plus grend soin, compte tenu de le condition et de la nettetA de I'exemplaire filmA, at en conformity avac lej conditions du contrat de filmage. Lea exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en pepier eet imprimie sent filmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la darnlAre pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'illustration, suit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous (as auties exemplaires origlneux sent filmto en commen^ant par la premMre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'illustration et en terminant par la demiire pege qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dea symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernMre imege de cheque microfiche, selon \3 caa: le symbde — ► signifie 'A SUIVRE", le symbole ▼ signifie "FIN". Maps, platea, charta, etc.. mey 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 diagrama illuatrate the method: Lea cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre f ilmte i des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsqurf le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un soul clichi, 11 est film* A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de geuche h droite, et de haut en baa, en prenant le nombrc d'images nAcessaire. Las diagrammes suivants illustrent la methods. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 THE BISHOP OF HURON'S OBJECTIONS TO THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING 01 TEINITY COLLEGE, WITH THE PROVOST'S REPLY. PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE CORPORATION OF TRINITY COLLEGE. ROWSELL & ELLIS, PRINTERS, HINQ STREET. 1862. •K: %. 4i^" % EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OP THE MEETING OF THE COR- PORATION OF TRINITY COLLEGE HELD ON TUESDAY, 18th FEBRUARY, 18G2. Moved by the Lord Bishop of Hueon : That a committee bo appointed to receive from him a written statement of the objections made to the doctrines contained in the three letters of the Provost, and also any answer thereto, and to report to this Corporation at a future meeting. — Carried. The Hon. Me. CAMEROif moved that the Committee ordered by the fore- going resolution, be a committee of three, one to be named by the Bishop of each of the Dioceses of Toronto and Huron, and the Bishop elect of Ontario. The following members of said Committee were then named : — Me. Haeman, by the Lord Bishop of Toronto. Rev. J. W. Marsh, by the Lord Bishop of Huron. Rev. Db. Lauder, by the Bishop Elect or Ontario. EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OP THE MEETING OF TUESDAY, 7th OCTOBER, 1862. Me. Haeman presented the following report : — The Committee appointed under Resolution of the 18th of February, to receive from the Lord Bishop of Huron a written statement of the objec- tions made to the doctrines contn'ned in the three letters of the Provost, and also any answer thereto, sad to report to the Corporation at a future meeting, have the honour t'j report having received from his Lord- ship the Bishop of Huron and from the Provost the documents they have now the further honour to lay on the table: namely, objections to the Provost's teaching, dated London, Canada West, May, 1862, and the reply of the Provost, dated this present month. All which is respectfully submitted. (Signed on behalf of the Committee.) SAMUEL B. HARMAN. Teinity College, 7th October, 1862. OBJECTIONS OF THE BISHOP OF H JRON TO TUB TEACHING OF TRINITY COLLEGE. At the meeting of the Corporation of Trinity College, which was held on the 18th of February last, I proposed the following resolution : — " Whereas two letters have been recently published by the Provost of Trinity College, avowedly with the approval and under the authority of this Corporation, and whereas these letters contain many things which appear to a largo number of the members of the Church throughout the country to be highly objectionable, and whereas, the appro- val of this Corporation thus claimed for these letters is calculated to alienate the minds of the people from this University, and to destroy all confidence in it, as a sound and safe institution for the education of the youth of our church in the protestant principles of the Church of England; be it resolved, therefore, that this Corporation regrets that these letters should have been published as by its authority, and desires distinctly to record that it does not hold itself responsible for the opinions maintained in these letters." The u jject of this resolution was to obtain from the Corpo- ration an opinion on these letters which the Provost addres- sed to the Lord Bishop of Toronto in reply to the charges brought against the teaching of Trinity College by me. In asking for this opinion thei'e was no attempt to judge or condemn the Provost unheard ; he had been heard in his defence in these letters. His pamphlet of ninety-six pages, carefully and elaborately written upon the charges brought against his teaching had boon published avowedly under the sanction of this Corporation, and circulated throughout the country ; and it was the duty of every member of this Cor- poration to bo thoroughly acquainted with its contents. But instead o? pronouncing an opinion on the defence of the Provost contained in these letters, an amendment was adopted by the Corporation, which was moved by the Chief Justice, and seconded by the Bishop Elect of Ontario, the effect of which was to express the entire confidence of the Corporation in the teaching of the Provost, and to evade expressing any opinion on the Provost's pamphlet, which was the subject of the resolution moved by me. The fol- lowing is the amendment : " That it be resolved that the Corporation of Trinity Col- lego does not assume either to represent or to identify itself with the views of any party in the Church. That the opin- ion expressed by the Corporation on the first letter of the Provost vindicated the writer from the imputation of teach- ing doctrines not allowed by the Church, and to that opinion the Corporation still adheres. That, olthough the second letter of the Provost was not submitted to the Corporation, its publication was authorized as stated by him. And, although the Corporation is not committed to its details, it is not aware that it can be shown to be contrary to the teaching of the Church ; that the Corporation cannot, therefore, entertain any proposition to condemn any portion of either of these letters without a specific statement, in writing, of the objections that are urged against them. I then moved the following resolution : " That a committee be appointed to receive a written statement of the objections made to the doctrines contained in the three letters of the Provost, and, also, of any answer thereto, and to report to this Corporation at a future meet- ing." In accordance with this resolution I have prepared m^ written objections to the opinions contained in the letters published by the Provost of Trinity College, which were written after mature consideration, in reply to the charges brought by me against tho teaching of Trinity College, and which are, there- fore, to be taken as a full and candid statement of his views, and as furnishing tho best and strongest arguments which the Provost can adduce in favour of his opinions. When at tho request of tho Executive Committee of tho Synod of my diocese, I addressed a letter to them in August, 18G0, setting forth tho grounds upon which I had formed my opinion upon tho teaching of Trinity College, tho only documents to which I could refer were tho notes which the Students had taken of the lectures delivered to them by the Provost. Several copies of these notes had come under my notice, and they agreed so entirely in all important points that I could not resist the conclusion that I had before me a correct statement of tho teaching of the Provost, or, at all events, a faithful account of the ideas imparted, and of the effects produced upon the minds of the Students by the teach- ing to which they had been subjected. These gentlemen, some of whom were no longer youths in the strict acceptation of the term, were fully convinced that they possessed iu their note books the exact answers which tho Provost required to his questions, in proof of which they distinctly stated that when examined they gave these answers precisely as they appear in their notes, and that such answers were never objected to by the Provost. The Provost has, indeed, denied the accuracy of these notes, and refuses to bo held responsible for them; but he has published three letters in reply to my charges, addressed to the Lord Bishop of Toronto, in which he has fully stated his views. I now therefore appeal to his published opinions in proof that the theological teaching of Trinity College is dan- gerous to the young men who are subjected to it. This is the opinion which I expressed in reply to a question put to me by a lay delegate in the Synod of my diocese, held in June, 1860 ; and now, after the lapse of so many months, affording opportunity for more thorough investigation and careful reflec- tion, and having before me the opinions of the Provost fully stated by himself in his three letters to the Bishop of Toronto, I feel constrained to reiterate the opinion, and to add that my conviction id more fully cbtuMiHlied tiiut the teaching of Trinity College is not only subversive of those Scriptural ftnd Protestant principles which have been the glory of our Church since the lleformation, but calculated also to beget in the minds of the alumni of that institution impression'' favourable to the unscriptural nnd superstitious doctrines and practices of the Roman Church. The Provost, in his published letters, has not confined him- self to those points to which I adverted in my letter, but on other topics also has enunciated opinions which in my view are even more unscriptural and more dangerous than those to wiiich 1 objected. I shall first notice the opinions pro- pounded by the Provost on the subjects mentioned in my let- ter of August, 18G0, and shall then bring forward my objections to those additional statements which the Provost has introduced in his pamphlet. In adverting to the author- ities quoted by the Provost, I shall bo careful only to employ them as giving corroboration to the views of the Provost upon the points in question. The first subject to which I would advert, is the undue exaltation of the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of our Lord. The inspired writers of the New Testament have said but little of the Virgin Mary, as if the Holy Spirit foresaw and designed to discountenance beforehand the superstition and idolatry which, through this door, afterwards found en- trance into the Church of God. The little which is said of the Virgin Mary is not calculated, in any wise, to exalt her above the level of a creature, or to encourage superstitious feelings concerning her. Our Church has wisely followed the example thus set by the inspired writers. All that she has taught upon this subject may be summed up in one brief sentence, Christ was born of a pure Virgin. The Provost has gone far beyond this in his teaching, and the effect upon che minds of students has been to make them believe that the answers in the manuscript notes which they had compiled were in accordance with the views p.ut forth by the Provost, ^'hey, one and all, believed that they had been taught that iViary had an appointed type in the law, and that she was d "un instnnncut in bringing iuimkind into tlio kingdom of Iloavcn." Tlio Provost, in liis pumplilot, pngo 25, says : — " I consider this latter clause to bo open to very dmigerona construction, as it n)iglit bo understood to imply some past or permanent ministry of tlio lilessed Virgin tending inimc- diatoly to the salvation of mankind." This is precisely the opinion which I have formed and expressed concerning this answer. Tho Provost says ho did not teach this. I, of course, believe him. But the students must have supposed that he did teach it, for Avhcre else could they have learned iL ? — not from tho Holy Scriptures — not in the Cliurch Cat- cchisra — not in the Creed — not from their parents and friends. They believed that they learned this from tho Pro- vost in his lectures, and therefore they all entered it in their notes. While, therefore, I must credit the Provost's denial, still I must regard that teaching as singularly defective and most dangerous, which could lead intelligent students to suppose that tho Provost intended to teach that which ho now so emphatically repudiates as open to " vei'i/ dangerous construction.'' We ciiniiot suppose, for one moment, that these students intentionally falsified their notes ; and wo have good reason to believe that those gentlemen Avho read and digested such instructions have gone forth into the Church and the world believing and ready to teach concern- ing tho Virgin Mary that which tho Provost now agrees with me in characterising as "very dangerous." With reference to the probable intercession of departed saints for us, tho Provost states, in page 92 of his pamph- let : "I must still do as I have ever done, sp^ < c of it as a probable opinion, not as a truth revealed to as in Holy Scripture.'' Upon his own admission then he stands, as a teacher of youth in the Church of England, inculcating, as probably true, a doctrine not found in tho Word of God, and on which the Church is entirely silent. Whether tho intercession of departed saints for us be a probable and pious opinion, may well be questioned. Whatever may be the sentiments of some who have ventured rashly to specu- late upon things which are not revealed, and have professed mmmm 10 to be wise above what is written ; ol' this fact the Provost can- not be ignorant that there are in the Church many able divines who regard this opinion not only as unwarranted by the word of God but repugnant to it a? a vain conceit and derogatory to the Redeemer's glory. And I cannot but consider it dangorous to young men thus to be led off the track laid down by the Church in a Ilomc-ward direction, more espe- cially in times like the present when we have beheld large numbers of ouv clergy and laity forsaking the Scriptural Church of their fathers and falling victims to the corrup- tions and idolatries of the Church of Rome. And most, if not all, of these men commenced their downward course by just such rash speculations upon unrevealed subjects as the Provost has been in the habit of bringing before the students of Trinity College. The next point to which I have objected in the teaching of the Provost, is his doctrine concerning priestly abso- lution. The Provost holds and teaches the most ultra view concerning the power of the priest to forgive sins which has ever been taught even in the Church of Rome. In the 94th page of his pamphlet he thus expresses him- self; "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 sins thou dost forgivo they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are re- tained.' " From this it might appear that the Provost thinks that these words of Scripture, quoted in our ordinal, would be "idle " if not interpreted absolutely without any condition limitation or exception. But in page 29 of his pamphlet we find the following explanation of the power of the keys, and of the limitations and exceptions which must be understood when the words of our blessed Lord are employed in the ordi- nal : — " True repentance, which cannot exist apart from 11 it ?ft true faith in Christ, is presupposed as the indispensable quali- fication of the recipient of the pardon which God is then asserted to bestow in the Church through the authoritative, yet simple ministerial absolution of ti\e minister, which takes effect, not at his [the minister's] pleasure, but according to the genuineness of the repentance of those to whom it is administered." From this we learn that the Provost does limit the words of the ordinal, but that stili he regards the absolution of the Priest as not merely declarative, but as effectual and necessary before pardon is recorded in heaven. If this be the honest conviction of tue Provost, as he states, he is right to hold his opinion, but I cannot but regard it as dangerous that such views of judicial, effectual priestly abso- lution shouic' be taught in an institution of the Church. Our Church teaches that God " hath given power and command- ment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins." And in the exercise of this power they are to declare that " God pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent and unfeignedly believe his holy Gospel." Thus does the Church interpret the words of the ordinal. The sinner who truly repents and believes the Gospel is fully pardoned and accepted by God : his sins and iniquities are blotted cut for ever. The minister has pc ver and authority to declare this for the comfort of the believer, and for the strengthening of his faith. How different is this from the power which the Provost and his authorities cl^Jm for the Priest, of pardoning effectually the sins of the penitent believer before they are pardoned of God. In the passage which the Provost has quoted in page 55 of his pamphlet, this judicial power to forgive sins is stated in the most repulsive and unscriptural form ir. the words of Chrysostom and Pope Gregory, as quoted with approval by Bishop Sparrow. " Heaven waits and expects the Priest's sentence here on earth ; and the Lord follows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds or looses here on earth the Lord confirms in heaven." " The Apostles, and in them all Priests, were made God's vicege- rents here on earth, in his name and stead, to retain and 12 remit sins. When, therefore, the priest absolves, God absolves, if wo be truly penitent." Such views of the elTcctual judicial power of the Priest to forgive sins I must regard as most dangerous to young men. And I know that some who have been taught in Trinity College hold them. I feel myself, therefore, bound to enter my solemn protest against the teaching of such in this insti- tution. The next point which I would notice in the teaching of the Provost is his doctrine concerning the sacraments. As to the number of the sacraments ; I think it is dangerous for our youth to be taught that there are two great sacraments and other holy rites or sacraments, when our church dog- matically teaches in the catechism that there are " two only :" and in the articles, " there are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord :" and that " those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, &c." Whatever may be said con- cerning the ancient use of the word Sacrament, since the Reformation the word has had but one application in our Church, and it cannot be regarded as either wise or safe to lead young men to look upon other rites and ceremonies as at all to be placed on the same footing as the only two sacraments which Christ has ordained. This is well stated in a passage quoted by the Provost from Archbishop Seeker : " By the early writers of the Western \i. e. the Papal] Church it was used to express almost any thing relating to our holy religion, at least any thing that was figurative, and signified some- thing further than at first sight appeared. But afterwards a more confined use of the word prevailed by degrees ; and in that stricter sense, which hath long been the common one, and which our catechism follows, the nature of a sacra- ment comprehends the following, &c.'' Why should our Church teachers now evince a desire to go back to the use of forms and phrases which our reformers carefully avoided ? 18 With reference to the nature and office of the sacraments the Provost's views are open to the same objection. Our Church teaches that the sacraments are outward signs of inward grace and seals to those who truly repent and believe in God's mercy and favour towards them. The Provost evidently regards them in quite a diffccnt light. He quotes a passage from Watcrland in his third letter to the Bishop of Toronto, which, he says, he had read to his class, in which the following view of baptism is given : " Are we not all of us, or nearly all, (ten thousand to one,) baptized in infancy, and therefore regenerated and justified of course." The doc- trine of baptismal justification is that against which our Re- formers most strenuously contended, as the root of many of the doctrinal errors in the Church of Rome. The eleventh arti- cle of our Church teaches that "we are accounted righteous [justified] before Gad only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ," &c. And in the Homily on the salvation of man- kind we read that man is justified " freely by fiiith in Christ," and that " faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins." Yet the Provost propounds the opinion, and adduces sundry quotations from the writings of fallible men to prove that all baptized persons are justified, and that though our Church teaches that faith sends us directly to Christ for the remission of our sins, still, " the doctrine of justification by faith, rightly understood, is not inconsistent with the statement that faith sends us to Christ for the remis- sion of our sins through the sacraments and ordinances of his appointment." What the Provost means it is difficult to com- prehend. How can the statements that " we are justified by faith only," and that "ftiith sends us directly to Christ," be understood to mean that we are justified by baptism and not by faith only, and that faith sends us to Christ, not directly, but through sacraments, &c. Here is one of the worst features in the system taught by the Provost. " Justifica- tion by faith only " has ever been regarded as the grand distinguishing feature between the reformed and corrupt Churches. And I cannot but regard it as most dangerous to endeavour to undermine it or explain it away, as has been f 14 done in the second and third letter of the Provost, and in the quotations which he has adduced on this suhject. With reference to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the Provost has explained his views in a passage which occurs in the 77th page of liis pamphlet: " Before the charge, or rather the insinuation, of the Bishop of Huron, I should have thought it quite unnecessary to explain to any one that I do not understand by the 'glorified humanity ' of our Lord any thing which can be orally received ; nor again do I under- stand, when Mr. Proctor says that ' every faithful recipient there partakes of Christ's glorified humanity,' that he dreams of any local presence of this heavenly gift in or with the earthly elements, but means simply that in faithfully receiv- ing the sign, we surely receive the thing signified. By the word 'there,' I understand, as the Bishop of Huron seems to have done, 'in the sacrament,' and by the 'sacrament,' not the outward material sign, but the holy celebration'^ ! ! From this explanation it is very difficult to collect what view the Provost really entertains concerning the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But he has quoted in page 87 of his pamph- let a charge of the Bishop of St. David's, in which his Lord- ship altogether condemns the propositions of Archdeacon Denison, concerning this sacrament. I therefore conclude that the Provost agrees with his Lordship in repudiating vhe doctrines taught by the Archdeacon. In that charge I find some wise and judicious remarks concerning the use of the term " the real presence." His Lordship says, " The phrase real presence is foreign to the language of the Church of England, and has been wisely avoided as liable to abuse, anrl likely to deceive or scandalize the simple and ignorant." It must be apparent to all that the term which the Provost has employed, from the writings of Mr. Proctor, and has so vehemently defended, " that every faithful recipient partakes in the Eucharist of the glorified humanity of our Lord" is much more likely to deceive and scandalize the simple and ignorant, and should therefore be regarded as dangerous and avoided in lectures addressed to young men on the Cate- chism. The Provost has quoted this charge with the high- est commendation as exactly stating his own views, and in it wo find language employed which is capable of being in- terpreted so as to express and support a view of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament which is not in accord- ance with the teaching of our Church. His Lordship speaks of what he ventures to call " the objective reality in the sa- crament," and he says, " but they are apt to overlook the necessity for something beside the instrument and con- dition which is more indispensable than either, namely, the presence, the power, the spiritual agency by which the in- strument is effectually applied." It would have been well had his Lordship remembered his own rule, and avoided the use of phrases which are capable of a most unscriptural in- terpretation. There is a passage in the Provost's pamphlet which sets the sacrament of the Lord's Supper before the reader in a light altogether different from that in which our Church teaches us to regard it. This passage occurs in page 80 of the pamphlet : " I am perfectly satisfied to admit that it speaks of a supernatural gift, which both before the insti- tution 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 ive shall receive it if duly prepared." While our Church teaches that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a rich mean of grace to the faithful recipient, it nowhere teaches that it is " the appointed mean and the only mean,'' whereby we can be assured that we shall receive the supernatural gift promised by God to his believing people. Nay more, the Rubric at the close of the service for the communion of the sick enjoins the curate to instruct the sick man that " if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the bene- fits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth." Here is no doubt- il ful and uncertain may such as the Provost employs, but the fullest assurance is to be given to tlie penitent and believing sufferer that -without the sacrament h'> has all the spiritual benefits signified in that ordinance. The unqualified application of the sixth chapter of St. John to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is another feature in the teaching of the Provost which cannot but be rcgardod as dan- gerous. The times in which wc live demand a caution which at another period might not bo necessary. There is a strong tide of opinion, more especially amongst the young, setting towards those false doctrines and erroneous practices from which our forefathers at the Reformation freed the Church, and it is our duty to endeavour by the use of every legitimate means to save those placed under our direction from being carried away by the haste and rashness of youth towards the gulf in Avhich so many have made shipwreck of the faith. In my letter of August, 1800, I incidentally mentioned that I had heard from Students of Trinity College the statement, that " the Church of England lost at the Refor- mation sjme things Avhich were in themselves good and tended to edification." The Provost in his first letter, page 24th of his pamphlet, meets this, as he says, " with a flat denial of its truth,'' in plain English, he pronounces it a falsehood. Yet in his second letter, page 34, we find however the following pas- sage. " I have never indulged in maudlin regrets respect- ing the losses we sustained at the Reformation, and there can be no possible colour for the charge, except it be that in reading of admirable early usages, which our Reformers did not venture to restore, such as that mentioned by Justin Martyr, the conveyance of the consecrated elements to all sick members of the Church after every public celebration of the Eucharist, I have said that we might well regret that we possessed not this usage in our Church, but that our regret should be controlled by the remembrance that a necessary consequence of the grievous abuses which pre- ceded the Reformation was to abridge our liberty, and to deprive us of good things which might have been safely enjoyed in happier times.'' 17 It is not to bo wondered at tliat students hearing such statements as the above shouhl come to the conclusion that " at the Reformation our Church lost some good things." The Provost speaks of "admirable usages" which our Re- formers did not venture to restore, and ho instances the con- veyance of the consecrated elements to the sick after every public celebration of the Eucharist. Now this is a usage against which our Church in her Rubric upon this subject and in her article specially protests. The Provost states that he had never indulged in maudlin regrets respecting losses sustained at the Reformation, and yet by his own showing he teaches young men that they may well regret that there are " admirable early usages" which we do not now possess, and that in the Church of England we are now deprived of " good things," which in happier times we might have enjoyed. Surely the tendency of this teaching must be to make the students dissatisfied with the Church of England as it now is, and to look with an eye of favour upon that Church which still retains those admirable usages, and in which those "good things" are now enjoyed. The Clergy of the Church of England are bound " so to minister the doctrine and sacraments and discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and realm hath received the same." I cannot therefore but regard it as dangerous to lead young men to look back .'o the Church in the period before the Reformation as possessing "admira- ble usages" which our Vcformcrs could not venture to restore, and as then enjoying "good things" of which we are now deprived. The Provost has adduced the names of many eminent men, and has claimed them as his authorities for his teach- ing on different pcints. Amongst the authorities thus ad- duced we find Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Jewel, Hooker, Usher, Calvin, and Baxter. Can the Provost show that these men embraced and taught his system as a whole ? That they taught, that the pardon of sin and justification are obtained by the penitent and believing sin- ner first at baptism, as the only effectual instrument of 3 ". 18 If justification, and after baptism, by tho authoritative absolu- tiona of the priest, and that the Eucharist is " tho only mean" whereby the supernatural gift of Christ as the food of the soul can with certainty be obtained ? Can he adduce them as teaching that " all of us or nearly all (ten thousand to one) are baptized in infancy, and therefore regenerated and justified of course ? That there is no certain forgive- n633 of sin after baptism to the penitent believer until the priest has absolved him, and that then, and not till then, his pardon is confirmed in heaven, that when the Priest absolves God, absolves if we be truly penitent ? Can he adduce them to support his view that " admirable early usages and good things" enjoyed by the Church before the Reformation are not now possessed by us ? and that faith sends us to Christ, not directly, as our Church teaches in the Homily on Salvation, but indirectly through sacraments and other ordinances ? and in fine, can he adduce any one of these great and good men in support of the system of Sacramental Salvation, which, on his own showing, he holds and teaches in tho University ? Of this system I would say with Bishop Burnett, " The doctrine of Sacramental Salvation is justly to be reckoned amongst the most mis- chievous of all the practical errors that are in the Church of Rome. Since therefore this is nowhere mentioned in all these large discourses that are in the New Testament con- cerning justification, we have just reason to reject it. Since also the natural consequence of this doctrine is to make men rest contented in low imperfect acts when they cum be so easily made up by a sacrament, we have just reason to detest it as one of the depths of Satan." [Burnett on Articles xi. and xxv.] Were we at liberty to range through the voluminous writings of these and other eminent men, and to select from one and another, some weak, and, perhaps, erroneous opinion which, in their fallibility, they may have written, we could construct such a system of doctrine as would be utterly repugnant to God's word, and by pleading each of these men for something in our false system we might per- 19 suado tho unwary to believe that we had their sanction for the whole. Such a proceeding would bo most fallacious. If Latimer and Ridley, if Hooper and Jewel, if Hooker and Usher are worthy of being adduced as authorities on some, perhaps minor points, tiieir opinion on tho great funda- mental doctrines of tho Christian system should not be utterly despised and rejected. I have thus presented my objections to the teaching of the Provost of Trinity College. This Corporation is the only tribunal before which these charges c '. with propriety be brought ; as a Clergyman of ihe Jhurch of England, Mr. Whitaker is not under my jurisdiction, not being in my diocese, and therefore it would bo not only absurd, but highly presumptuous in me, to present charges against him before any ecclesiastical tribunal, and thus to interfere with the duties of another Bishop. But as Provost of this Uni- versity, of which by law I am a Member, he is subject to my supervision, and when I think there is in his conduct or teaching any thing which calls for investiga- tion, this is the only tribunal to which I can, with pro- priety, appeal. Tho law has invested us, as a body, with plenary power to deal with all matters which concern the interests of the University, and I can never consent to throw upon others the responsibility of doing that which we are capable of doing, and which we alone are, by law, authorized to do. BENJN HURON. London, C. W., May, 18G2. THE PROVOST'S REPLY. The paper containing the charges of the Bishop of Huron against my teaching begins with a statement respecting his resolution of the 18th of February, and the amendment which was substituted for it. As this statement does not affect myself, but relates to the course adopted by the cor- poration, I pass it over, and proceed to the remarks which the Bishop makes (page 7) on the source from which he originally derived his information respecting my teaching — " notes which the students had taken of lectures delivered to them." I have already protested against this document being received in evidence, and I must again respectfully submit that it ought not to be alleged, even for the purpose of showing that there is prima facie ground for appxehension or suspicion, until the witnesses, on whose authority the Bishop relies, shall have been produced and examined as to the origin and character of these " notes of lectures.'* I must further observe that the Bishop does not correctly describe the document. "Notes taken by students " would be a sufficiently precarious authority under any circumstan- ces ; but, in the book to which the Bishop refers, he is aware that such notes have been recast into a catechetical form, a form in which my lectures are not written or delivered : and it thus appears that further occasion has been given for misstatement even though unintentional. Speaking of the students whose MSS. the Bishop has obtained he says (page 7) : " These gentlemen (some of whom were no longer youths in the strict acceptation of the term) were fully convinced that they possessed in their note- books the exact answers which the Provost required to his questions, in proof of which they distinctly stated that when S8 examined they gave these answers precisely as they appear in their notes, and that such answers wore never objected to by the Provost." This is a very broad assertion, which ought not to bo ad- vanced to my prejudice at second-hand. I have had no op- portunity of testing its correctness further than by a letter which I received from the Rev. I. Middleton of Kincardine, dated August 4th, 18G0. Till the receipt of this letter I hud had no communication with Mr. Middleton since the year 1858. He writes : " lie (the Bishop of Huron) has written for my catechism, which of course I have sent him in deference to his position, however with exactly the cau- tion put forth in your letter, viz. : that it was all taken down by way of notes in your lecture-room, and might by the slightest inaccuracy in those very points lead to very erro- neous conclusions." I have been compelled to dwell on this, because, al- though the Bishop's charges are professedly founded on my own letters, he does, as occasion offers, revert to the authority on which his original charges were based. I now proceed to the specific charges adduced by the Bishop. I. The undue exaltation of the Virqin Mary. On this point the Bishop says, (page 9) that my reply to his original objection contains " precisely the opinion which he has formed and expressed ;" that is, I have condemned exactly as he would, the words found in the students' notes, as being "open to very dangerous construction." It does not however follow that they admit of no other con- struction, or that they were understood by the students in the sense to which the Bishop justly objects. I think that I have shown sufficiently in this controversy that I have no disposition to disguise my real opinions ; but, while I fearlessly avow these, there is no reason why I should con- sent to lie under the imputation of viewing with any degree of approval teaching which I abhor. I have, then, never meant to teach, I have never taught, respecting the Mother 28 of our Lord, any thing, to uso tho Bishop's own words, (pago 8,) "calculated in any wiso to oxalt hor above tho level of a creature, or to encourage superstitious feelings concerning her." Tho Bishop sums up the teaching of our church on this subject in these words, " Christ was born of a pure virgin." lie adds : " The Provost hos gono fur beyond this," and, for his proofs, he refers, not to any thing which I have said or written, but to a possible construction of some half-dozen words in tho students' MS, an authority to which, I must ngain repeat, ho has no right to refer. I aflirm this both generally, as a matter of equity, and particularly, as ho is at present bound to state his objections against my letters. If there is one error of the Church of Rome which I have more frequently and strongly condemned than any other, it is its undue exaltation of the Mother of our Lord. The addition made to the creed of that church in December, 1854, (viz.: the doctrine of her immaculate conception,) gave mo occasion so to do, and I am satisfied that my old pupils will bear me out in this statement. Tho Bishop of Huron's present charge amounts to this^ that I have taught Bishop Pearson's words in their plain meaning, and that my teaching has been reported by some who have attended my lectures in words which, while they might be intended to convey only my meaning, are so unguarded as to admit of a wrong one : just the mis- take which under the circumr'ances of the case might bo ex- pected to occur. Or, if again it bo thought to be an undue exaltation of the Blessed Virgin to communicate to my class the opinion of Bishop Pearson in regard of her continuing in tho state of virginity, tho Bishop of Huron must be aware that his judg- ment herein differs from that of the English Church at large. " Pearson on the Creed" has long been a text-book at our universities, and is prescribed by the Bishops generally to candidates for Holy Orders in preparing for examina- tion. I showed, moreover, in my second letter that Bishop Pearson is sustained in this opinion by no less] then twelve authorities of tho English Church, by Cranmer, Latimer, Hooper, Jewel, (all leaders in tho Reformation,) by Hooker, 24 I Jackson, Hammond, Bishops Taylor, Bull, Beveridge, Wil- son, and Pearce : to these I may now add Archbishop Leigh- ton, Arc jishop Bramhall, and Field, all men of eminent learning and piety, and the first at least reverenced by all parties in the Church. 1 give the quotations from these new authorities in a note at the end, (see note A,) in order to avoid encumbering ray reply unduly with such extracts. In concluding this subject, let mo state that I have never done more than inform the students of this opinion, as a rca- ponablo and probable opinion, and as one which, in my judg- ment, as in that of these great men. Holy Scripture at least leaves us room to cutertain. The commentary of the Rev. Thomas Scott shows that he considered the question to be thus left open by Scripture,, II. The probable intercession of departed saints. I believe that, on this head, some offenco may have been given undesignedly by the use of the word " intercession." Any such offence I am both prepaved, and most anxious, to remove. By ^^intercession"! mean nothing more than ^•prayer." The word "intercession" is used in Holy Scripture not only of the meritorious intercession of our Blessed Lord for men, but also of the precatory/ intercession of men for other men. Thus St. Paul says, (1 Tim. ii. 1,) " I exhort, therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all msn." I used the word, then, as St. Paul uses it, but I should quite as readily have used the word " prayer.*' Such prayer of departed Christians for us I have spoken of only as a probable opinion, and not aa a '* doctrine" as the Bishop of Huron terms it, immediately after quot- ing my words in which I speak of it as an opinion, I do not charge the Bishop with intentional misrepre- sentation, but it is essential that the distinction ehould be kept in view clearly. For doctrines we look to Holy Scripture, and, if it be silent, no human authority will suffice to establish a doctrine. In matters of opinion any 25 reasonable arA modest man must feci that he ought to pay great deference to authority, and no one can have a right to denounce, as the Bishop of Huron does, as an opinion not to be tolerated in Churchmen, and as dangerous in ihe extreme, an opinion which has been held, as this has been, by writers of eminent attainments and piety, belonging to all schools of opinion which have prevailed from the Reformation downwards. I conceive that the right to hold and to enunciate, as probably true, opinions " not found in the Word of God, and on which the Church is entirely silent," is claimed and exercised by churchmen, whose sentiments are ia general ac- cordance with those of the Bishop of Huron, not less freely, if not mora freely, than by any other section of the Church. In my second letter I adduced no less than thirteen author- ities of the English Church for this opinion. Bishop Ridley, Crakanthorp^ Archbishop Ussher, Dr. Hammond, Bishop Pea'iSOn, Bishop Nicholson, Thorndike, Bishop Bull, ^^ishop Stillingfleet, Bishop Ken, Bishop Beveridge, Robert Nelson, Archbishop Seeker. To these I may now add Bishop Latimer, Nowell's Catechism, Bishop Hall, Archbishop Bramhall, Bi- shop Jeremy Taylor, Dr. Tillotson, Archbishop Wake, Bishop Heber, and, as a modern and popular religionist. Dr. Cumming. (See note B.) I fully admit that an opinion is not to be adopted merely because it is the opinion of these men, but surely no one has a right to condemn as "dangerous to young men," as the Bishop of Huron does, (page 10,) what they will meet with so frequently in the writings of our best divines, and I cannot but be surprised that the Bishop of Huron should think fit to characterize the array of eminent names ad- duced in my second letter "as some who have ventured rashly to speculate upon things which are not revealed, and have pro- fessed to be wise above what is written." (pages 9, 10.) I fully share in the Bishop's anxiety lest " in these times our young men should be led astray in a Romeward direction," but I differ from him as to the best method of guarding against this danger, and I venture to think that I am not far wrong in the company of the eminent persons to whoso 26 if writings I have referred, many of them well known as able and strenuous opponents of Rome. But it may be asked, " What have we to do with this opinion?" Even without rcfere.ice to the controversy with Rome, I believe it to be a most wholesome and edifying thought, that our departed friends, who have died in the faith and fear of God, still desire our everlasting salvation, and seek it by prayer, as they did on earth. But in contro- versy the opinion is of very great moment. The Romanist maintains and practises the Invocation of Saints. This usage I utterly condemn, as an invasion of the prerogative of the Almighty, and as a dishonour done to the One Mediator. How then is this error to be met ? Are we to meet it by impugning the persuasion that the righteous who are at rest pray for us ; a persuasion which, as we huve seen, approves itself to so many minds of all classes, which is so consolatory in itself and draws so many hearts towards the unseen world ; a persuasion which all reasoning from analogy confirms— and which the Word of God, though it does not expressly sanction, goes very far to establish ? Are we, I say, to un- dertake this task, or are we rather to show that the persuasion that the departed pray for us does in no way tend to justify, or even to palliate, the erroneous practice against which all English Churchmen contend ? The Romanist, I am satis- tied, would greatly prefer our adopting the former course, which is sanctioned by the Bishop of Huron : the latter is, I am assured, the correct and secure line of defence. If it be conceded that there is a connection in reason between the opinion which so raany excellent men of our own church have held and do hold, and the Romiph practice of the invo- cation of saints — that the former is indeed only the stepping- stone to the latter, a vast advantage is given to the Roman- ist, which, as a faithful opponent of his error, I can never consent to yield him unnecessarily. I should argue thus : Be the opinion of the intercession of saints for us true or false, the practice of the invocation of saints is alike unwarrantable and presumptuous : in invok- ing them you practically assign to them Omnipresence and ^7 f 3 Omniscience, and thus invest them with the incommunicable attributes of God. I say nothing of the additional and very serious evils con- nected with tlie Romish usage, because I am satisfied that the usage is, in itself y wrong. I am, however, deeply sensible of those evils. The Bishop of Huron says, (page 10,) "The Provost cannot be ignorant that there are in the Church many able divines who regard this opinion not only as unwar- ranted by the Word of God, but repugnant to it as a vain conceit, and derogatory to the Redeemer's glory." I am quite aware that some writers of our Church have taken this ground, but they are not the most eminent either for learn- ing or for piety, nor can it be matter of surprise that, in the heat of controversy, some blows have been hastily aimed and ill-delivered. I do not impugn the orthodoxy of such writers ; I do not regard them as unfaithful members of the English Church ; but I do think that they have unnecessarily opposed an opinion countenanced by Scripture, and I do not trust them, in this particular, as prudent and successful defenders of the bulwarks of our faith. I believe, however, that the great body of our controversial writers are on my side, and, in addition to the authorities above cited, I must be permitted to adduce the XVIIth Volume of a Series of Tracts against Popery, published at tlie beginning of the reign of King William the III., when the feeling against Popery was at its height. The book is entitled, "Popery not founded on Scripture," it has the imprimatur of Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury. The introduction is written by Dr. Tenison, a man of moderate views, and always regarded as a sound Protestant, and the several tracts, though by different hands, are printed as one book with continuous pagination. At pages 194, 195, we find the following : " We believe as well as the Romanists, that angels and saints are in a happy and blessed state ; '.hat they have a very fervent charity, and a most tender concern for the Church on earth, and are always ready to do what they are able, especially by their good wishes and earnest prayers, to 28 promote its prosperity ; that they are very dear to God, in great grace and favour with Him, and likely to prevail in their intercessions for what things they ask according to His will ; that they know very well what must be in general the necessities of a militant Church, the tribulations and perse- cutions it is subject to ; that it is never without enemies, and consequently never without troubles ; and knowing this, that they cannot but commiserate its state, and in pity and com- passion towards it, pray for its relief and succour. Farther ; though we do not make it an article of our faith, we look on it as a probable thing, that holy Bishops and Pastors, when they are gone to Heaven, have in their pi..^ers a particular regard to that part of Christ's Church over which they pre- sided ; that other saints also in heaven may recommend the condition of their particular friends and relations unto God, with whom they lately conversed in the body, and whose wants they then were intimately acquainted with." But I have said that Holy Scripture goes far to make this opinion in the highest degree probable. The narrative of the rich man and Lazarus (St. Luke xvi.) points to this conclusion. If a sinful man in torment is represented by Christ Himself as remembering his brethren, as desiring their salvation, and, in order to ensure it, as even beseeching human aid, the only aid probably to which he had been accus- tomed to look, is it not in the highest degree probable that the spirits of the righteous, having no less lively a remembrance of those whom they have left behind, and no less fervent charity for them, should continue to commend them to the same Almighty care — to the same Spirit of grace — to whom, they had from day to daycojamended them on earth? If there be any law of the kingdom of God, by which prayer for the Church on earth becomes to the departed righteous a thing impossible or sinful — any law by which such prayer ceases to be a duty, this is a law of which not the most distant intimation has been given us in Scrip- ture, a law based on no principle of natural or revealed religion. 29 III. Priestly absolution. The Bishop of Huron says, (page 10,) " The Provost holds and teaches the [highest and] * most ultra view concern- ing the power of the Priest to forgive sins, which has ever been taught even in the Church of Rome." Nothing is pro- duced in proof of this charge (a charge which I cannot cha- racterize as it deserves) except the fact that I have enquired (at page 94 of my pamphlet) whether the solemn words ad- dressed to candidates on admission to the office of a priest have any meaning or are idle words. The Bishop says it might be inferred from my making this enquiry that I consider that the words would be idle " if not interpreted absolutely, without any condition, limitation or exception." I had good reason to put the question which I did put, for in his letter to the executive committee of his diocese, the Bishop of Huron had said, " This mode of teaching the remission of sins, in baptism, sealed by the reception of the Lord's Sup- per, and declared by the authoritative absolution of the Church, is not that which God has revealed in His Word, and which our Church teaches in her formularies, her articles, and her homilies." (See pamphlet pp. 11, 12.) Remembering that the document which the Bishop had before him when he wrote these words, represented me as stating that sin after Baptism is forgiven "o» repentance" and that the Bishop's objection, consequently, could not rest upon my having omitted this indispensable condition, I was, I conceive, not mistaken in considering that he did, in the language which he employed, rob the words of our Ordi- nation Service of all their meaning. It is, surely, one thing to believe that words mean some- thing, and another to believe, as the Bishop intimates that I might fairly be understood to believe respecting the words in question, that they are to be taken without any qualifica- tion whatever. Indeed the Bishop himself afterwards shows that I do qualify them. * Words in brackets found in pamphlet, not in MS. 80 I may here be permitted to observe, by the way, that in his present paper the Bishop of Huron urges no objection, so far at least as Absolution is concerned, against the state- ment which, in the extract given above from his letter to the Executive Committee, he so strongly condemns, as at variance with the word of God, and with the formularies of our Church. On the contrary, he now admits that the Absolution in Morning and Evening Prayer is declaratory, consequently forgiveness is declared in it : he admits that the minister has power to make the declaration, therefore it must be authoritative, otherwise there is no meaning in words ; he enters no protest against " the sealing in the Holy Com- munion," probably considering that, on this point, Cranmer and Baxter are sufficiently respectable authorities, to say nothing of the general admission by Calvinistic divines of our Communion, and even by Socinians, of the " obsigna- tory " effect of the sacraments, viz., of their sealing to us grace previously imparted. I have, however, no wish to disguise my conviction that the Bishop of Huron does not agree with me in the sense which he attaches to the word " declaratory." I believe that " to declare and pronounce to God's people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins," is not (whether we look to the literal and grammatical meaning of the words, or to the mind of those who framed our Liturgy,) one and the same thing with preaching or proclaiming to men gen- erally the doctrine of the remission of sins. I have reason to think that the Bishop of Huron does regard these two acts as one and the same ; in other words, that he thinks it the same thing in effect to pronounce the absolution, and to read one or more of the sentences of Holy Scripture set at the beginning of morning and evening prayer, which an- nounce God's willingness to forgive ; allowance being made for the more complete statement of the Christian doctrine of forgiveness which the absolution may be considered to contain. This is certainly a very important difference of opinion, which cannot be obviated by agreeing in the use of the same technical term. That my view is that of the 31 Church may be gathered from the fact that, while she per- mits a deacon to read the sentences of Holy Scripture, she forbids his pronouncing the absolution. It would be, I think, very difficult, from the ground which the Bishop of Huron takes on this question, to perceive any reasonable cause for this regulation of our Church. If she entrusts to ministers of the third order one act of public ministration, while she prohibits their handling another, must we not sup- pose that she recognizes a marked distinction between the characters of these acts, and the authority requisite in the one case and in the other for their legitimate performance ? The following extract from Bishop Burnet will shew the view which he took of the meaning of our Reformers in arrang- ing this part of our service. Speaking of the second prayer- book of Edward VI., he says: "The most considerable ad- ditions were, that in the daily service they prepared a short, but most simple and grave, form of a general confession of sins; in the use of which they intended, that those who made this confession should not content themselves with a bare recital of the words, but should join with them in their hearts a particular confession of their private sins to God. To this was added, a general absolution, or 'pronouncing^ in the name of God, the pardon of sin to all those who did truly repent, and unfeignedhj believe the gospel. For they judged, that, if the people did seriously practise this, it would keep up in their thoughts frequent reflections on their sins ; and it was thought, that the pronouncing a pardon upon these conditions might have a better effect upon the people, than that absolute and unqualified pardon which their priests were wont to give in confession ; by which absolution, in times of popery, the people were made to believe that their sins were thereupon certainly forgiven ; than which nothing could be invented which would harden them into a more fatal security, when they thought a full pardon could be so easily purchased. But now they heard the terms on which only they could expect it, every day promulgated to them." (Burnet's Hist, of the Reform., vol. ii., pt. i., pp. 313, 314, Oxford, 1816.) S2 i|i! ;'i,,ii I ■Jr. Hero Burnet describes the public absolution as intro- duced to supply the place of the private absolution, and the only difference which ho points out between the one and the other is this : that the private absolution was, as he states, absolute and unqualified, while the public absolution is conditional on the possession of the Evangelical requisites of true repentance and unfeigned faith. I}ut to return to the charge which has been brought against me. Does the Bishop of Huron know what that charge really involves, and is he, knowing this, prepared to sustain it ? I. Boes he know that the great foundation on which the priestly power of absolution, claimed in the Church of Rome, rests, is the necessity of auricular confession — the obligation to confess, privately and particularly to the priest, every mortal sin before it can be forgiven ? Has the Bishop of Huron any, the slightest, ground for imputing to me the be- lief that auricular confession is necessary or expedient ? My belief is that, except in the few cases in wh'ch our Church recommends or allows private confession, it is dangerous to men's spiritual welfare, as relieving them of a wholesome sense of individual responsibility, and as inviting them to ignore or to evade a burthen, which, after all, God has ap- pointed that we should bear. Has the Bishop of Huron any ground for attributing to me a contrary belief ? Our Church contemplates two cases only in which private confession should be used, one referred to in the exhortation to the Holy Communion, both probably in the service for the visi- tation of the sick. The one is the case of a man distressed and embarrassed, either as the consequence of a sinful life, or by some particular act of sin, and unable to satisfy him- self of his penitence and faith in Christ ; the other is the case of a person unable, in the midst of physical weakness and consequent depression, to judge aright of his own state, or to take a sound and healthful view of the application of the general promises of God to his individual necessities. I heartily agree with the judgment of our Church in this mat- ter, and while I think she did well to permit or advise pri- 83 vate confession in tho exceptional cases specified, I believe that she did most wisely in substituting ordinarily public and general confession and absolution for private and particular, and, when I speak of absolution generally, I desire to be un- derstood as speaking of the forms used in morning and even- ing prayer and in the service for the Holy Communion. II. I have never taught that sin cannot be forgiven ex- cept through this ministration. I do not attribute even to this public and general absolution, tho necessity which the Romanist assigns to private absolution. I believe that God forgives the sins of the penitent, when he truly confesses them, and pleads for forgiveness in the name of Christ, un- der any circumstances ; but I also believe that our Lord honours and blesses the public assemblies of his Church with special privileges resulting from his special presence : I be- lieve that, if the penitent, confessing to God in his private devotions, may rely on the general promises of God's word, and believe that his sin is pardoned ; so also when he con- fesses in the public assembly, those promises are specially applied and conveyed to him, by a ministry which our Lord himself has appointed, and through which He may truly be said, in the words of Professor Blunt, (Lectures on the Du- ties of a Parish Priest, p. 376,) to " transmit absolution " to the penitent and believing. This view, I admit, is utterly incompatible with the opinion which the Bishop has expressed as to the mode in which the Divine forgiveness is conveyed, when he says : " The sinner who truly repents and believes the gospel is fully pardoned and accepted by God, his sins and iniquities are blotted out fo" ever (page 11).'' But equally incompatible with his view are the confessions which we are taught to make from day to day, not only of the sins of the day, but of the sins of our past lives. More especially in the Communion Service do we pray God to "forgive us all that is past," and we " acknowledge and be- wail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed by thought, word and deed." We are thus taught to confess again and agaiO) 6 84 fk with a deeper conviction of the sinfulness cf sin, our old transgressions ; and to bolievo that it is most needful for us to receive again and again, not only the assurance of the Divine forg'voncss, but also a renewed conveyance of that forgiveness, which must abound more richly towards us as we are more fully prepared to receive it. In illustration of what I have here said, I would invite at- tention to the words which are found in the exhortation, at the beginning of morning and evening prayer, " and although we ought at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins before God ; yet ought wc most chiejly so to do, when we assemble and meet together, &c." We are here plainly taught that no private confession can possibly supercede the duty of pub- lic confession, but must still leave it as our " most chief" ob- ligation in this regard ; and, if this be so, can we rightly conceive of the pardon accorded on private confession to God as being other than contingent and provisional (though suflS- cient for our immediate necessity ;) while its more full and formal conveyance is reserved to follow on that confessxn, to which we are instructed to regard ourselves as " most chiefly " bound, and which is oflfered when " we assemble and meet together," as members of a Divinely instituted organiz- ation, to receive the gifts, and to avail ourselves of the min- istries, which pertain to the body of Christ. In my pamphlet (page 91) I expressly stated that, in order to avoid the appearance of giving garbled quotations, I had introduced matter not strictly relevant, and that I wished it to be distinctly understood, that I quoted my authorities ^^ simply as authorities on the main point in question" with- out pledging myself to the approval of all their arguments or modes of expression. I quoted Bishop Sparrow because he is well known, by those who know any thing about the matter, to be a distinguished name in the succession of English Liturgical writers, but while I accept his general statements in corroboration of my teaching, I refuse to make myself responsible for every word which he may use, far more for brief expressions or single words which appear in quotations, from such writers as Chrysostom or Gregory the 86 Great, which he interweaves with his text. I must however say that it does appear to mo strange that the great Greek Father should have given such ofTcnce by explaining, after his rhetorical fashion, the words of our Lord, " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earih shall be bound in heaven, and what- soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The words excepted against are a comment on this text, and there is a sense in which they fairly represent the will of our Blessed Lord to ratify in heaven ministerial acts of Ilis servants upon earth done by Hisauthorityand in conformity with His will. It should be remembered also that Absolution stands in relation, not only to the voluntary confession of sins, but also to excommunication ; and that early writers, living ii. times when Church discipline was strictly enforced, often contemplate it chiefly, if not exclusively, under this aspect. If then it bo possible (as I conceive, with the Epistles to the Corinthians in our hands, wo must admit) that a just and righteous sentence of excommunication should be pronounced, a sentence which the Great Head of the Church shall approve and ratify; must we not think that, when bishops and priests thus bind sins on earth, according to Christ's command, He fulfils his own words, and Himself binds them in heaven ? And on the other hand, when He has promised to these His ministers (as our Church in the ordination service leads us to believe) that whose sins they forgive they are forgiven, can we conceive a more fitting case for the application of the promise than the restoratior, of the repentant sinner to the communion of the Church ? And, since Christ has given this promise, can we think that He does not require the penitent, who has been debarred from communion for his sins, to seek the assurance of His forgiveness, by restoration to the communion of His Church, and through the same ministry which has (ieclared the sentence of excommunica- tion ? Is it likely that He should communicate that assur- ance to the soul, when it is not sufiiciently humbled to seek such formal restoration, pronounced by the judgment of the appointed minister ? And so may it not be strictly true, as 8o literary history of the Church of Eng. land, but approved and vaiued writers. I avail myself of this suggestion in respect of one writer, whom I (]iiote I in my second letter, under the head to which this note relates — Dr. Ulchard Crakanthorp, author of a «' Defence of the Church of England, against the calumnies of M. Antony de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro." Anthony Wood, in his Athcnto Oxonienscs, II., 3G2, edit. Bliss, says : " This book was hold for the most exact book of controversy since the Reformation." Barlow, Bishop of Lincoln, in his Remains, p. 80, says : " No book I have yet seen has so rational and short un account of almost all popish controversies." Dr. Ward, from whom I quote largely elsewhere, says, in writing to Uasher, then Bishop of Meath : " I suppose your lordship hath seen the process against the corpse, picture, and books of the Archbishop of Spalatro. Unwise man that could not easily have presaged these things. By halting between two, he hath much obscured his worth with all parties. / have pet used tome of Dr, Crakenthorp'a book, which is tvell done," (Us.sher'8 Works, Vol.XV., pp. 208, 209.) NOTE (C.)— PAGE 48. " This is therefore the necessity of Sacraments. That saving grace which Christ originally is or hath for the general good of His whole Church, by Sacraments He severally deriveth into every member thereof. Sacra- ments servo as the instruments of God to that end and purpose, moral in- struments, the use whereof is in our hands, the eflfect in His ; for the use 80 vre have His express commandment, for tho efTcct His conditional promise : 80 that without our obedience to the cnc, there is of the other no apparent assurance, as contrarivrise where the signs and sacraments of His grace are not either through contempt uniccoived, or received with contempt, we are not to doubt but that tlicy renllj give Avhat they promise and ore what they signify. For we talje not baptism nor the euoharist for h:i j resemblances or memorials of tilings absent, neither for naked signs and testimonies assuring us of grocu ri^ceived before, but (ns they are indeed and in verity) for means effectual wheruby God when we take the sacraments delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal Ufe, which grace the sac- raments represent or signify." (Hookrr. Boole V., chapter LVIL, § 5.) " Here (viz., St. Mark :^vi. IG, » He that belleveth and is baptized shall be saved,') the word saved amounts to the san»n thing in the main with Justi- fied, being opposed to condemned: and it is further observable, that the believing here must be understood of a lively faith ; yet that alone is not said to save, or justify, but with the addition of Baptism : for whatever some may please to teach of faith only soijuslifi/int/, the exclusive term, most cer- tainly, iS rot In be understood in opposition, cither to the luork of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Hot;/ Ghost ; or to tho standing means of coDveynnce wl ich they have chosen. Tlie warmest contenders for faith alone are content to aJ»nit that the exclusive term, alone, is opposed only to every thing tlso on man's f'^'t in justifying, not to any thing on God's pa^t : now I have already not^d that Baptism is an instrument in God's hand, who bears his part in it ; and therefore Baptism, in this view, relates to God's part it justifying, and not to man's." (Watcrland on Justification. AVorks, Vol. VI., pp. 10& 11, Oxf., 1843.) NOTE (D.)— PAGE 51. " My lord of Deny (Powiiham) is a worthy man, and whom I do much reverence ; yet would I wish his Lordship to be well ad.lsed. I doubt not but the doctrine of perseverance may sufficiently le cleared, though we grant that all infants baptized be free from original guilt. The speech in Lombard, alleged as out of St. Augustine, " Sacra.nenta in solis eloctis effieiunt quod figura. t," is no whore to bo found in S. Augustine. And if it were, yet it is to le understood .i" Lombard doth gloss it. otherwise Augustine should contradict himself, as is evident by the testimonies he there produceth out of Austin : and nir.ny more might be brought for re- iiiission of origioal-sln in all biptized in'arits, out of liini, I know most of our divines do make the princi[ial end and effect of all sacraments to be ob- signa.cry, and all sacrmnents to be merely obsigntory signs; and con3«- quently that ablution ol' Infants from original sin. is oulv conditional end expectative, of which they ha*e no benefit till they bel-;vi; and repent ; I cannot easily assent hereunto. f ' i 81 For so, 1. Inliiuts bapti/eJ, Jying in infuDcy, liavo no bunefit b; baptism. And al! non-elect infants have no benefit at all, so that to both of these they are nitda el inej)lcacia siymi. 2. What necessity of baptizing infants, if it produce no eifect till years of discretion ? 3. Though our divines do niost-what run upon obsignation, yet often they do expressly hold, that sacraments do offer and exhibit that grace which they signify, and as 1 conceive must needs offer and exhibit the grace which thry signify, before they assure and confirm. For God doth offer and exhibit grace promised in the sacrament ; then wo exercise our faith in relying upon God, promising, offering, and exhibit- ing ou his part; and so accor<'ing to the tenure of t! e covenant,''receive the grace promised, and then savi- ments in the second place do assure us of the grace received. And thus much is signified in the definition of a sacra- ment, in our short catechism, as I conceive, when it is said, " It is an out- ward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby wo receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." (Extract from a letter from Dr. Ward to the Archbishop of Armagh (Ussher). Ussher's Works by Elrington, Vol. XV., pp. 505, 50G.) Dr. Ward says, immediately before the passage quoted ; «' I had heretofore thought upon the point somewhat, and my lord of Sarum (Davenant,) and myself, ik. IV., chap, 17, g 10, 11, and on i Cor. (ch ip. xi. 24,) and adds, "So that instrumental conveyance of the grace signified to the due receiver, is as true an effect of a sacrament, when it is administered, as obsignation, and is pre-existing in order of nature to obsignation. See more at large Mr. Hooker, (Bk. V., chap. 57, 59, 60, 64, and 67,1 who^ in my opinion, doth truly explicate the efficacy of sacraments." (Ibid, p. 511.) 11 82 m Arclibishop Usslier also says iu a letter to Ward, to which Ward evidently refers iu his first, "You have done mo a great pleasure in communicating unto mo my lord of Salisbury niul your own determination touching the efficacy of baptism in infants; for it is an obscure point, an 1 suoh as I desire to be taught in by such as you are, rnther than deliver mine own opinion thereof. My lord of Derry hath a book ready for the press, where- in he handletii at full length ti.- controversy of perseverance, and the cer- tainty of salvation. lie there determineth that point of the efficacy of baptism far otherwise than you do : accommodating himself to the opinion more vulgarly received among us ; to which he appMeth sundry sentences out of St. Augustine; r*i!d among others that "Do Baptismo :" "Sacra- menta in solis electis hoc verc efficiunt quod figurant." (Ibid, p. 482.) Dr. Ward in his "Determinationes Theologicte," quoted in the text, speaks distinctly of" baptismal justification." His words are : " It is further enquired, whether all infants rightly baptized are un- doubtedly justified. Here some very learned theologians hesitate ; inas- much as they restrict this eflfect of justification from original sin to elect infants. We make two assertions — first, that all infants, rightly baptized, who die in their infancy, arc unquestionably justified " * * * * " This was our first assertion : our second is, that all infants, even those who are nonelcct, and who will ultimately perish, if duly baptized iu their infancy, nri' freed in Baptism from the guilt of original sin." (Determinationes Theologica3, pp. 50-53.) Such were tlie opinions held by Ward and Davenant, and respectfully received by Usslier, witli thanks, if not with full concurrence; at all events witliouf remonstrance. Those men lived when the Calvinistic party in the Church w.'is stronger tlmn it had been before, or has been since, and they all belonged to that party, though these extracts go to prove that Ward, and probably Davenant, were Augustinians ratlier than Calvinists, striving loyally to reconcile their private views of Predestination with the Catholic teftf.hing of the Church on otlici points, not forcing Catholic truth to bend to their own theory. NOTE (E.)-l'AGE 51. " Two special branches there be of tbi.s kingdom of our Lord and Saviour : the one of grace, whereby tliat part of tlie church is governed, which is militant upon earth ; the otlier of Glory, belonging to that part which is tniimphnnt in Heaven. Here upon earth, as \>y Uis prophetical office Ho workutli upon our mind and understanding, so by his kingly, He ruletli our will and uflections : ' casting down ioiaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against tlie knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Clirist.' Where, as we must needs nc- knowledgc, that 'it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do,' and that it is He which 'sanctiflotli us wholly': so are wo taught to believe, J 83 ' both He who sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one,' namely, of one and the self-same nature , that the sanctificr might not bo ashamed to call those, who are sanctified by him, bis brethren, that as their nature was corrupted, and their blood tainted in the first Adam, so it might bo i-estored again in the second Adam, and that as from tho ono a corrupt, 80 from the other a pure and undefiled nature miglit bo transmitted unto the heirs of salvation. The same God Lhat givcth grace, is Ilo also that giveth glory : yet so, that the sti'cj • of both of them must run to us through the golden pipe of our Si'viour's humanity.' « For since by man came death,' it was fit that ' by r7rii also should come the rcsurrcctiou of the dead.' Even by that man who hath said, ' AVhoso eatcth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life : and I will raise them up at tho last day."* (Archbishop Ussher, On the Incarnation of the Son of God, Works, by Elrington, Vol. IV., pp. 616, 617.) )ur : is ;h is Ho our that vity i>c- and re, f \- ■. NOTE (F.) At page 12 of the Bishop of Huron's objections, he cites a passage which I had quoted from Archbishop Seeker, at page CG of my pamphlet, and iu so doing, where the Archbishop speaks of " the early writers of the Western Church," ho makes the following interpolation, " the early writers of the Western [t. «. the Papal] Church." Any reader of the '♦ Objections" would naturally infer that the words be- tween brackets form a pari of the quotation ; and even if tlicy are understood to be an explanatory note, inserted by the Bishop of Huron, they cither mis- represent tho Archbishop's meaning, by making him speak of writers who lived after the rise of the Papal power ; or, by absolutely identifying the Wes ■ tern Church with the Papal Church, they concede that the claims of Rome were recognized long before they had been even advanced. Tertullian in the second century, Cyprian in the third, St. Augustine at the beginning of (he fourth, may be cited as "early writers of the Western Church" who use the word " Sucramentum" in the wide sense of which Arch- bishop Seeker speaks ; yet they all lived in times when the Papal authority, so far from being generally acknowledged, was not as yet asserted ; and they all belonged to the African Church, which firmly resisted the undue preten- sions, or boldly challenged the mistaken judgment, of individual occupants of the Roman See. Of this both Cypriim a..d Augustine furnish signal instances, the former in his dispute with Stephen, Bishop of Rome, the latter iu the Pelagian controversy. When Archbishop Seeker speaks of " the early writers of the Western Church, he means the La/iii Church, the writers of which could alone have employed the word " sacrnmontum " at all. The eflFect of the interpolation of the Bishop of Huron is to represent the ji)rmi- tive use of this word as a Romanist abuse of it. Again, at pnge 11, tiie Bishop of Huron speaks of Gregory the Great, under (he title of Pope Gregory, a donlgnation which would be equally ap- plicable to any one of sixteen Bishops of that name, including Hildobrand. 84 Gregory the Great, whose Christian compassion for our heathen ancestors we would not willingly forget, lived in the sixth century ; oud, nl though he may bo stylca Pope In the original sense of that title, he docs not dcscrre to bo classed among those who, under that title, have claimed a spiritual sovereignty over the universal Church. So far from this, Gregory the Great vehemently protested against John, Patriarch of Constantinople, for desiring the name of Universal Bishop, and pronounced such an assumption a proof that ho who made it was the forerunner of Antichrist . " None," snys he, " of my predecessors ever consented to use so profane a word ; because, if one patriarch is called universal, the name of patriarch is taken away from the rest." (Gregor. Magn. Epist., vii., 33, and v., 43.) 1 ; sstors gh be scrre ritual IT the e, for iption ' snys lause, away 3.) 1