'But to the Doctor's contras:-and here, it must not be supposed for a moment, that we intend a discussion with the Doctor on the subject of an intermediate state. This is very far from our intention, and for reasons which, before we are through, will be sufficiently manifest. Why should it be attempted? Mr. S. has placed the doctrine of his sermon on the sure and impregnable basis of reason, revelation and the authority of the Church; nor has the Doctor, in the whole of his labored review, adduced any thing to shake, in the slightest degree, one of his positions. He has indeed given us an abundance of hard names, bold assertion and reckless denunciation; but any thing like fair, dispassionate and manly argument, we have not been able to discover.

We have said that the Doctor is against himself. We begin with this contra, from personal respect to the Doctor, and for personal convenience to ourselves. For, it being seen that the Doctor's hands are against himself, there will be less difficulty in showing, as well as less surprise in finding them against others.

*

In looking over the Doctor's twelve or fifteen large newspaper column review, a sufficiently respectable article in length, improved and perfected by all the advantages of as many months of consideration, correction and republication, we noticed, as we thought, some rather low personalities some little want of good temper, kind feeling and gentlemanly courtesy-some slight indications of vanity-and something like cant, sneering and bitterness:-thus,-"Our Rector"—"though not a Goliah to encounter"-" hastening to teach others before he has himself studied the topic of discussion". -“the puerile and unanswerable logic of the Rev. Rector of St. James"-" inexcusable ignorance of church history"-meagre gleanings." These, with a suitable number of et ceteras, and a dazling display of the " punctum admirationis," are a few specimens of the dignified manner, graceful diction, and elegant witticisms, by which the learned and accomplished Doctor would forestall the judgment of his hearers and readers, stifle the voice of truth, and excite odium against an unoffending christian brother. But as we cannot suppose that even the Doctor thought that these rude personalities could take the place of argument, or in any way serve the cause of truth, we conclude that he intended them merely as ornaments-sparkling little gems, to adorn this super-elegant and double-refined Review. We shall therefore take no further notice of them than to set them down as so much against the Doctor's self, as a courteous and gentlemanly reviewer.

The Christian Intelligencer edition, the only one that we have seen. +These, with many other expressions of a like nature, grace the Doctor's first No. in the Intelligencer.

The Doctor commences his review by assuming and declaring, and this too, in the face of facts to the contrary, that Mr. S. was the aggressor-was indeed a "challenger." Now happening. to know something of the origin of this sermon, and of the circumstances under which it was preached and published, we affirm, and without the fear of contradiction, that the Doctor's assumption and declaration have not even the semblance of truth for their support. So far was Mr. S. from being the aggressor, it is notorious that he was himself assailed, wantonly, violently and publicly assailed. It is indeed possible that the Doctor may have been deceived in this matter; but then, if so, we must say, willingly, as he held in his hands the proof that what he had assumed and declared was not true.

In his further efforts to make Mr. S. the aggressor, the Doctor asserts-shall we say "with inexcusable ignorance?" O, no;-could we bring ourselves to retort upon the Doctor his own courteous language, it would not meet the point, but with incredible infatuation; and, as if to make the strange fatuity more apparent, he repeats the assertion, that "Mr. S. has charged upon us," the R. D. Church, it is supposed, "an ancient heresy." This heresy, the Doctor says, in direct and unqualified terms, "Mr. S. through inexcusable ignorance of church history, has actually charged upon us as our doctrine." Nor is Mr. S. the only one who falls under this terrible denunciation of charging, thro' inexcusable ignorance of church history, this ancient heresy upon their neighbors. For, says the Doctor again, "they," the high church party, "charge upon us the guilt of adhering to an ancient heresy." O, ye Pearsons and Bulls, ye Burnets and Seckers, ye Horns and Horsleys, ye Seaburys and Hobarts, yea, ye Čalvins and Campbells, and ye Wesleys and Clarks, come bow your diminutive heads to this mighty censor, this self constituted Oracle of the Collegiate R. D. Church, and confess before him your ignorance and folly! But what was that ancient heresy, at the very thought of which the Doctor is so filled with horror?-All that Mr. S. says on this subject is in these words,

"There was an ancient heresy which set forth the doctrine that the souls of the faithful go at death immediately into heaven, and enter on the full fruition of their God. And it must be admitted that, with some variety of form, this doctrine has had its friends and supporters in different ages of the Church: nor yet can it be denied, that it has its advocates even at the present day. It is but justice however, to remark, that between the ancient and the modern exhibitions of this doctrine, there is sometimes found this difference, -that, in the former, the doctrine is, for the most part, connected with a denial of the resurrection of the dead, and consequently of the general judgment; whereas in the latter, these great christian verities are generally admitted, although it may be somewhat difficult to see in what consists the value of the admission, or to understand the nature of the resurrection, and the reason of the general judgment."

But does Doct. B. admit that the docrine of sending saints to heaven, at death, is a heresy? Is not this the very doctrine which throughout the whole of his laboured review, Dr. B. is endeavoring to establish? And does he not again and again declare this to be the true doctrine? Listen to some few of "his profound conclusions." Having wrested certain portions of scripture from their true and obvious meaning he says,*

"Hence departed souls are now with him [Christ] in heaven."-"Therefore departed souls of believers do go into heaven and its eternal glory.""Therefore the souls of departed christians are with Christ in the glory and happiness of heaven."—"The departed are of course in heaven, as certainly as those who are not departed are upon earth. There is of course no middle place. It is unknown on the pages of the Holy Bible. They are all either in heaven, or on earth. Hence every member of Christ's family, when they leave the church below, are [is] received into the family of God above, in the heaven of heavens."

Verily, if the doctrine of sending souls, at death, immediately to heaven, be heresy, "nothing has ever yet existed so precisely like" heresy, dear Doctor, as this your review. But heresy or not, where is the evidence of the truth of the Doctor's unqualified, deliberate and repeated assertion that "Mr. S. has charged this heresy upon us," Dr. B., the R. D. Church, or any other individual or body? Not a particle exists. But will Dr. B. deliberately and repeatedly, preach, print, and reprint such a direct and unqualified assertion without proof? Has he not referred to the very page of Mr. S.'s sermon for the evidence by which this assertion may be sustained? The Doctor has indeed made such a reference; and sorry we are, on his account, that he has done so. We have given above, every word that Mr. S. has said respecting that ancient heresy. And we wish that all who can lay hands on that sermon, would turn to page the 7th, to which the Doctor has twice referred, and read for themselves. It will be found that the Doctor predicated, and largely too, on something besides, "inexcusable ignorance," when he ventured on such a reference for the support of this utterly unfounded and cruel assertion. He very well knew, that not one of ten thousand, who had heard, and would read the various spoken, written, and printed versions of this wicked calumny, would ever see the sermon of Mr. S. to which this falsehood appeals for its support; or if seeing it, would ever take the trouble to examine it. We however have examined carefully the page referred to, and we defy the power of genius to draw from that page, any other part of the sermon, the slightest warrant or justification for the Doctor's broad, unqualified and repeated assertion. And as for the appendix written for the express purpose of further elucidating the doctrine of the sermon, and defending its author against the "gross attack," made upon him, Mr. S. is so

*See Chris. Intel., Dec. 21, 1839, No. III.

or

far from charging the R. D. Church with this "ancient heresy," that he labors, and we think, with complete success, to show that the doctrine of that church, on the subject in question, is in perfect harmony with his own. We therefore set down this wilful, deliberate and cruel misrepresentation as so much-more by and by, against the Doctor's self as a candid, honorable, and trusty reviewer.

Another of the Doctor's troubles with Mr. S.'s sermon, is its want of taste. His exquisitely refined sensibilities are here absolutely shocked. And although he has not given us a single sentence of the sermon-yet, we have his word for it, that " no man of taste can endure the vulgarity of his style." Now as this is a quality of writing, in which the Doctor has had great experience, and as he is pre-eminently distinguished as a practical judge, his naked assertion, always so true and just, must be deemed entirely satisfactory. Admitting, therefore, the old adage, "De gustibus non disputandum est," we yield this point without debate. That Doctor B. is a man of taste, we have the most abundant, as well as convincing evidence, if not in some of his immortal works heretofore given to the public, certainly in the marvellous exhibition of intellectual refinement now before us. We therefore set down this amiable effervescence of offended delicacy, merely as the result of some slight, perhaps accidental irritation of the Doctor's nervous system, wherein the sensitive man happened to get the mastery over the rational; and his sufferings here, often in this naughty world, the penalty of superior genius, we cannot but commiserate.

But the want of taste is not the only or chief sin of Mr. S.

"He has yet to study the theology of the best fathers of his own Church ; and in a special manner the subject which he has undertaken to discuss. He hastens to teach others before he has himself studied the topic of discussion. He hurries into his subject without definitions or explanations. Hence he sails the whole of his voyage under false colours."*

Now the only emotion excited by this strikingly modest and tasteful exhibition of truth, justice, and loving kindness, was that of wonder, that the Doctor should have given so much time and labor to such an imperfect, unstudied and harmless production; for surely so great and good a man might, it would seem, have found other and more profitable employment. Whether "Mr. S. has studied the best fathers in his own church on the topic of discussion," we know not; but this we know; he has contrived to extract from those fathers such a mass of evidence, in support of his opinions, as no unprejudiced mind can resist; and from it, to forge a chain of testimony so strong, that the Doctor, with all his hard blows, has not been able to make the slightest impression upon a single link of it. Then *See Chris. Intel., Dec. 7, 1839, No. I.

as to deffinitions, explanations and such like matters, if Mr. S. has ventured to preach a sermon without defining clearly, and explaining fully, every thing in relation to it, he is certainly much to blame, and merits the severest chastisement for such neglect, as no one, save and excepting always Doct. B., should be allowed to practice such liberties. But were not the Doctor the most veritable, as well as the most gentlemanly and honorable of critics, we should suspect that he had not even read the sermon which he has so skilfully reviewed; but taking for granted, it was a heretical production, or to carry out his own figure—some small piratical craft, "sailing under false colours," and offering a fit opportunity for the display of his tremendous. battering powers, he immediately bore down and gave battle accordingly. As evidence, however, of the entire confidence. that may be placed in the Doctor's complaints, as well as in the accuracy of his facts, it may not be amiss to state, that the first three pages of Mr. S.'s sermon are almost entirely occupied in defining and explaining the meaning and use of the word Paradise, on which, it will be remembered, the whole question of an intermediate state turns. In the Appendix, seven pages more are given to the further explanation of this same word Paradise; and eight more are exclusively devoted to the meaning and use of the words Hades and Hell. Now eighteen pages out of sixty, seems a pretty liberal allowance for the deffinition and explanation of two or three words.

Hardly does the Doctor recover from the shock occasioned by the bad taste and other enormities of Mr. S. when, unfortunate man, he is thrown into a state of perfect phrensy by the theory" of Mr. S., "and the unique and matchless logic, more mysterious than Geneva logic," by which he sustains it. Now were not the Doctor so very clever, even in his delirium, we should be tempted to break a lance with him here on the score of cruel consistency. He raises the hope of conferring on Mr. S. the honor of being the author of a "theory." He again and again calls it "his theory;" but alas, cruel hope, and more cruel Doctor, how suddenly do the brightest visions of glory sometimes vanish! Mr. S. is soon stripped of all the merit of originality; and that, which was but just now "his theory," becomes with most admirable consistency, in the course of three or four sentences, "the meagre gleaning from the pages of bishops Seabury and Hobart:" and as if this were not enough, after a few sentences more, this theory of Mr. S. becomes "the theory of the whole high church party in England and in this country." And it finally turns out that both the "theory and the puerile and unanswerable logic" of Mr. S. are but the theory and logic of "the whole high church party"-yea, the theory and logic of the whole Catholic Church. We strongly suspect,