short teach the truth _as it is in Jesus_,—THE faith and not A faith; and woe to us if from any mistaken notions of Christian charity, of that charity which “rejoiceth in the truth,” we hesitate to declare that to reject “the very essentials of Christianity,” is a “drawing back unto perdition.” At the same time when in the fulfilment of our bounden duty, our positive obligations, we declare the threat of scripture, for we declare no more, we might hope at all events from those whose every sentiment would seem to breathe of Christian benevolence, to have credit for declaring it in the spirit of that charity which “_hopeth all things_.” Of the _form of absolution_ in the Service for Visiting the Sick, you say, “no small harm is done to our reputation by sanctioning that which in plain honest language cannot be defended.” {51a} The Roman Catholic will tell you that you cannot in plain honest language defend any construction of the words “this _is my body_,” but their own. You put, however, a different construction upon them, and with no harm done to your reputation. The Bishop of Norwich says of this form, “I have heard many Clergymen express the pain they felt in uttering it, shrinking, as conscientious minds ever must, from the assumption of a power of so awful a character, while others from equally conscientious motives, abstain altogether from pronouncing it.” {51b} I hope I do not misapprehend his Lordship; but the impression of his opinion left on my mind by this passage, is, that no _conscientious mind_ can comply with our ordination vows but with _pain_ to itself. With what pain and reluctance then must his Lordship cause these solemn vows to be administered, and trusting that they are _conscientiously_ made, how from _conscientious_ motives a man can abstain from the observance of them, I confess I cannot clearly see. Nor, can I think it quite just to the great body of his Clergy to take a _weak_ conscience as the standard by which to measure the integrity of, perhaps, a better informed one. But if his Lordship _so_ construes our formularies, as implying an assumption on the part of the _Minister_, of a power, the arrogating of which can fall nothing short of blasphemy, namely, that “unless we as Ministers of the Church, ‘do forgive’ and ‘absolve,’ the sins of a dying man must descend with him to the grave, with all their fearful pressure; and _that if we choose to retain them_, _he cannot escape their consequences_,” {52a}—in other words, assuming a power like the false Prophets of old, “to slay the souls that should not die, and save the souls alive that should not live,” {52b}—if such be his Lordship’s view of our forms, a man need not be gifted with an over-sensitive conscience to shudder at the arrogance, the use of them must involve.