Memoir, 1809–1811

Defttb of Buhop Yorke — Dr. Dampier succeedfl to the See — His feelings’ towards Mr. Simeon — Mr. Simeon’s letter to nim — ExplanatioA of his Sentiments and Conduct —

Simeon’s Fresh Cautions’ — Professor Parish’s judicic

Pearson — Dr. Pearson’s ‘Remarks’ and note — Mr. Simeon’s reply — Reproof of an

Undei]g|adaate.

1809 — 1811.

In the latter part of the year 1808, Mr. Simeon sustained a serious loss in the death of his kind friend and patron, Bishop Yorke. The considerate regard and steady support he had hitherto enjoyed from his diocesan were now to be exchanffed for suspicion and interference on the part of his successor, iiittle symrathy or respect was felt by Bishop Dampier for the minister of Trinity Church; and no one was more aware of this than Mr. Simeon himself. Dr. Dampier had formerly been a fellow of King’s, and though he had left college before Mr. Simeon arrived there from Eton, he was certainly not ignorant of Mr. S.’s career; and it was well known he had not viewed it with much favor. Mr. Simeon, anxious to prevent any expression of the. bishop’s feelings, which might operate unfavorably upon his ministry, took the first opportunity he could of presenting to him a copy of the Helps to Vomposition; accompanying it with a respectful request, that his lordship would condescend to peruse the preface, as it contained a faithful exhibition of the * sentiments he held, and as he held them.’ To this note the bishop returned an answer certainly not distinguished for its courtesy, or calculated to allay Mr. Simeon’s previous apprehensions. As it was possible however that the object of Mr. S.’s former communication might have been misconstrued, and also that his late long absence from Cambridge might require some explanation, he once more ventured to conciliate his diocesan by a further exposition of his sentiments and conduct.

“February 10, 1809.

“My Lord, —

“During the greater part of last year I was under the necessity of being absent from ray charge. My strength had been so impaired by ministerial exertions, that I was compelled to desist from all public duty, and to seek the renovation of it by a change of air and sea-bathing. In October last I returned to my

156 LETTER TO BISHOP DAMPIER. [cHAP. XL

work, and since that time have continued it on the lowest possible scale of exertion, never attempting more than one sermon in the day, notwithstanding the prayers are read for me. By proceeding thus cautiously, I hope to be able to maintain my ground, without having any further occasion to apply for leave of absence. I take for granted, that if any record be kept of applications for leave, you will find that my absence was solicited, and complied with in due form; but if your lordship should wish for a copy of my late diocesan’s letter, I will send it you with great pleasure. It breathed a truly parental solicitude and kindness throughout.

‘* I am almost afraid that I did not state, with sufficient clearness, to your lordship, my reason for asking permission to lay my books before you. I beg to assure your lordship, that it was not from a high conceit of anything that I had written, or from an undue desire to obtrude anything of mine upon your lordship’s notice; but from a wish that your lordship should know, from an authentic source, what are the views and sentiments of one, who is now immediately under your lordship’s cognizance and jurisdiction. Your lordship knows full well, that even truth itself may be so stated, as to convey a very erroneous idea of a person’s sentiments: if, for instance, any one should say, that I maintain the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and yet leave an impression on the mind, that I neglected to enforce good works; what he might say in words, would be substantially true, but in fact, it would be as false as if he should accuse me of Socinianism or Deism. Indeed it appears to me, my lord, that the very same doctrines may be useful or pernicious, according as they are stated in a way crude and rash, or qualified and cautious: and this is what I meant, when I said, that ’ the preface contains all that I hold, and as I hold itJ For if only here and there a sentence were culled from the sermons, which are studiously compressed into the smallest space, my views might possibly be mistaken; but in the preface they are brought to a point, in such a manner, that they cannot possibly be misunderstood. In all matters that form a ground of difference between persons of real piety, I think I have endeavored to exercise caution and moderation, but in truths of fundamental importance, I have thought it my duty to speak with firmness and energy. Doubtless, it is not to be expected that every sentence in 600 sermons should be so written, as to commend itself equally to all; but the general scope of the whole, and the spirit which it breathes thoughout, will I hope be approved by all, even by those who here and there might have stated matters somewhat differently; and, if one single sentence were pointed out to me as objectionable in any view, I should instantly guard against its appearance in any future edition.

“As under Divine providence your lordship is now become my immediate superior in the Church, to whom I owe all possible deference and respect, I trust your lordship will approve of my

wish to lay before you the means of ascertaining my true sentiraentSy and of obviating any misconceptions which the statements of others, however unintentionally, might possibly create. Nor will your lordship think this caution unnecessary, when you are informed, that only about two years ago, the late Editor of the Cambridge InteMigencer (Benjamin Flower) published such falsehoods respecting me, that I judged it necessary to send them to my diocesan, and to take his judgment on the expediency of commencing a prosecution against him. It is the same man who was brought before the House of Lords, and committed to prison, for his unwarrantable attacks on the Bishop of LlandafT Being the great organ of the Jacobins, he labored to destroy the character of every supporter of order and government. His attacks on me were frequent, with my name in telegraphic characters. Your lordship may judge of the tenor of them by one single sentence in the first of them: ‘When will this man (namely myself) cease’ to whet the appetite of ministers for blood V To enter into a paper war with such a man would answer no good end. The only way to treat him is that which my diocesan recommended. For your lordship’s satisfaction, I send you a copy of his letter. (See page 125.)

This, my lord, I hope, will be deemed a sufficient apology for the trouble I have given you, and for the solicitude I feel to

f prevent such malignant efforts, if ever they should reach your ear, rom having any influence on your lordship’s mind. Not that I should have troubled you thus, if I had not feared that I was not perfectly underatood, as to the object of my former letter. “With every sentiment of respect,

“I remain, my Lord,” &c.

There can be no doubt that some occasion had been given for these violent attacks of Flower upon Mr. Simeon, on account of his preaching ’ in unlicensed places.’ In common with others of the more earnest and zealous clergy of those times, he had been ready, amidst the general ignorance and indifference that prevailed, to embrace every opportunity of preaching, to those who were willing to hear, ’ the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.’ And truly he was ’ instant in season, out of season.’ At that period, however, it should be remembered, that ’ the notions, among all parties, of order and discipline, and even of Church-government, were very different from what they are now. For many years it was not deemed irregular, even by the bishops, for clergymen to preach in Lady Huntingdon’s chapels, provided the prayers were read. Preaching in bams, or other places, was viewed much in the same light. It was not until a comparatively recent period that the bishop’s license was deemed absolutely necessary. W hilst many persons, who began preaching as laymen in Lady Huntingdon chapels, were ordamed by the bishops without scruple.’

156 CANDID ADMISSION. [cHAP. XI«

In forming our estimate, therefore, of the acts of Mr. Simeon in his earlier days, and of other men who pursued the same course, we must never lose sight of the views, and feelings, and principles of the age. It would scarcely be consistent with candor or justice to judge those men by the maxims or rules of our own times. The very men who were irregular then, would be the first to conform in every particular now. Many, indeed, lived to give the proof of this; and in the case of Mr. Simeon this was remarkably true; for not only in later life was he singularly attentive to order himself, but was wont particularly to enforce upon his younger brethren the importance and duty of not indulging their zeai at the expense of regularity and disoretion. On one occasion, a few years before his death, (in the presence of the editor,) he was good-naturedly reminded by an old friend of some of those instances of his early fervor: — Do you remember, Mr. Simeon, in former times coming very early in the morning to my great bam, to preach to the men before they went to their work r After a most significant look, instantly turning his face aside, and then with both hands uplifted to hide it, he exclaimed — O spare me I spare me I I was a young man then.

In the month of November, Mr. Simeon aain appeared in the University pulpit, and preached a faithful and searching sermon from Matt. v. 20, Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ This sermon was soon afterwards printed under the title, ‘Evangelical and Pharisaic Righteousness compared,’ and drew forth (Jan. 11, 1810) from the Christian Advocate, Dr. Pearson, a pamphlet, which he designated * Cautions to the hearers and readers of the Rev. Mr. Simeon’s Sermons,’ &c.

A few passages from the pamphlet will be sufficient to introduce Mr. Simeon’s remarks in reply.

On hearing and reading Mr. Simeon’s sermon, entitled * Evangelical and Pharisaical Righteousness compared,’ it occurred to me, and not for the first time, that the young men of our University, many of whom are designed for ministers of the Established Church, should be cautioned against imbibing error even in the sermons which they hear at St. Mary’s, the University church....

“Having a personal regard for Mr. Simeon, and for his zeafous exertions in the cause of religion and humanity, as also an admiration of his eloquence and impressive mode of preaching, I indulge the hope, that I may make a few remarks on his sermon, without giving him offence, which I by no means intend or wish to do.”

In the course of his observations, Dr. Pearson generously ad-CHAP. XI.] DR. Pearson’s “cautions.” 150

mits that, there is much in the sermon to be commended, and but little to be condemned.”

But the gravamen of the charge against Mr. Simeon, and the grounds for the * cautions’ to his hearers, may probably be discovered in the following paragraphs: —

“On the whole, then, it appears, that Mr. Simeon, with the view, as it should seem, of shutting’ out those from salvation, whom he had previously determined to condemn, has raised the character of the Scribes and Pharisees above its proper level. In proportion as this process would render it more difficult for any Christian to excel the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees/it afforded him an opportunity of excluding from salvation those Christians, whom he might choose to represent as falling short of it; for it would necessarily follow, from his text, that those who did fall short of it, could not possibly be saved.”

•” We may, then, very fairly conclude, that, when Mr. Simeon speaks of those who now ’ occupy the seat of Moses,’ he must at least mean to comprehend his brethren, the Clergy of the Church of England, if he does not mean to speak of them exclusively. The latter is what is most likely to be understood by the generality of his readers. .Mr. Simeon has himself made the ap-J>Iication more pointed, by referring to those * who are in repute or wisdom and piety amongst us,’ and whom, therefore, if I rightly understand him, he considers as persons ’ who have a disapprobation of real piety lurking in their hearts.’ What are we to think of such a passage as this in a sermon, preached at a University church, and printed at a University press 1 If Mr. Simeon can point out any other interpretation of this passage, which the passage itself will fairly bear, I shall be happy to attend and receive it At present, I can consider it in no other light than as a libel.** To this pamphlet Dr. P. appended the letter written in 1806, and addressed to the * Orthodox Churchman’s Magazine,’ on the subject of Mr. Simeon’s * Churchman’s Confession.’ (See page 120.)

With his wonted promptness and energy, in a few days Mr. Simeon prepared- a reply, entitled Fresh Cautions.* But previous to its publication, he submitted it to the judgment of his faithful and clear-sighted friend, the Rev. Wm. Parish, formerly the Tutor of Magdalene College, and then professor of chemistry in the University. From him he had the advantage of receiving the following very seasonable and judicious observations.

Chesterton, 9 o’clook, Feb. 1, 1810.
My dear Simeon, —

The enclosed hasty remarks I wrote before I went to bed last night. My pillow has not made me at all lnore favorable to the passages, to which I have objected. Aristotle indeed, I think, somewhere says, that in oratory, ysloa are most advan-

100 JUDICIOUS ADVICE/ [cHAF. ZI»

tageously rebutted by serious arguments, and vice versd. And the remark is very shrewd: but it is not to be followed throughout I don’t see that you set any advantage by it in the present case, that is not counterbalanced many times over by/disadvan* tages. Ridicule, as the test of truth, is a very powerful weapon in the hands of a disingenuous infidel; but the sentiment is fsJse, and the weapon suits ill in the hands of a Christian. I don’t see the propriety of using it, on a serious subject, against an adversary that means seriously, and aims to speak candidly; which I really think is the case at present, though I never felt less conviction from an attack in my life, with respect to the substance of it. I think, too, your opponent is too respectable a man to be so treated, and his office too respectable also. I think you will have the prejudices at least, not to say the ingenuous and proper feelings, both of your friends and enemies against you on this point. I see no good that you et by following Aristotle. But only think, what an advantage his rule will give to your opponent, or rather to those who will infallibly take up the cudgels for him; for I think he himself is too candid to make all the advantage which he might of the occasion. How will your ironies appear* when they are dressed up as your serious sentiments, and gravely refuted? You will in vain say, * I never meant this ;* the answer will be, * They are your very words; why did you say so V — * I was in joke.’ — But why joke on such a subject V This is the best you can expect from your enemies. But the truth is, not one in twenty of those, who will read their answer, will ever look at your ‘Cautions;’ and the majority of that twenty will seriously believe, on the testimony of your enemies, supported by inverted commas, that you actually hold what you only meant to ridicule. — But enough of this.

I like your answer, (so far as it is serious, and leaving out a little would make it entirely so,) very much. I think you ought to print it; and that it will have a very good effect, especially if you should rather keep down a lash or two, which might irritate too much. I looked upon the attack, when it first came out, as by far the most dangerous one that was ever made upon you; though by no means either the most malicious, or the most conclusive — indeed, as having scarce any of either. But it may bring upon you the collected resentment of a most powerful body; not upon you only, but upon all your sect, (if I may use the word.) It may serve as a watch- word — as a pretence — and there is no saying what severities it may justify; and the more so, on this account, that the whole sting ‘of it is contained in two syllables, which is a weapon not too ponderous for any knave to teach any fool to use. Only think what a wasp’s nest may be armed against you! I think your answer serves to extract this sting — to take away its poison in a degree far beyond my hopes. All your friends thought you had a very delicate point to touch, and I think

that you have touched it very delicately, veiy judiciously, and very ingeniously. .Therefore, I am altogether for publishing it; though not for publishing it altogether as it stands. I should have called, if you had not wished to see my opinion so early. I shall perhaps call sometime to-day, and taJk over some of these points more at large. Excuse haste; I have no time to look over what I have said.

Your’s, most affectionately,

“W. Faeish.’*

Mr. Simeon appears to have profited by this judicious counsel. The commencement of his rejomder to the master of Sidney is a good illustration of the courtesy and kind feeling, which ought ever to be maintained in controversies on religious subjects.

In noticing the Cautions which you have given to the readers of my sermon, I beg leave to thank you for the very kind, not to say flattering, terms, in which you do me the honor to speaJL of me: and to assure you, that the regard which you express, is mutual; and that, in respect for your person and character, I do not fall short of your most esteemed friends.

‘^ I am sensible, that to enter into controversy with a truly Christian spirit, is easier than to preserve that spirit throughout; and that it is difficult to find an advantage against an adversary, and to use it with due moderation. However, as I feel al present nothing in’ my heart but unfeigned respect and kindness towards you, I hope I am in no great danger of transgressing the limits which I would at all times assign to myself in such a correspondence: and, if there be in any part an expression that excites the smallest pain in your mind, I beg you to construe it in the most favorable sense, and to be assured, that nothing was further from my heart than an intention to wound your feeling.”

Then, in reply to Dr. P.’s charge, that with the view of shutting out those from salvation, whom he had previously determined to condemn, (Mr. S.) has raised the character of the Scribes and Pharisees above its proper level,’ Mr. Simeon observes: —

‘* Point out one single thing which I have required as necessary to salvation, and which God has not required; or one thin which I have condemned, which God has not condemned; do this, I say, and I will admit the truth of your accusation in its fullest extent But, if yjou csuiinot do it, then you will see, I think, the harshness and injustice of your remarks. However, I forgive them freely; for, whilst you have, in your own apprehension, detected and exposed this evil disposition of mine, and shown, that I, for the sake of terrifying some particular persons, make the way to heaven more trait and dimcult than 1 ought to do, I feel myself, on the whole, a gainer by the expression: for I have eained this at least out of the mouth of an adversary, (and it will be very ffratiiying to all the readers of my sermons,) namely, that I hold up the

102 PBB8R CAUTI0K8.’* ’ [cHAP. XI^

standard of holiness very high. You know, sir, that persons who maintain the doctrine of justification by faith alone without the works of the law, are supposed in general to disregard good works. But you have mformed the world, that this, with me at least, is not the case; and whatever they have need to be cautioned against my writings, they have no reason to fear an Antinomian spirit: you acknowledge, not only that I am as strong an advocate for good works as you yourself can be, but that I even go beyond you, and maintain a higher standard of holiness than you. Thus far then all is well.”

With respect to the remaining charge, of having published a libel,* he adds: — *

“Truly, here is a libel, and a very serious one too, I say, here is a libel; but who the author of it is, I must leave the public to determine. The public will at least suppose that you were convinced in your own mind. But, no; whust you are holding me up to the public as a libeller of all the Clergy of England, you

Jrovide a salvo for yourself by saying, If I rightly understand im.^ Pray, sir, is it right to bring such heavy charges, without knowing whether you understand the grounds on which they are brought; yea, at the very time that you acknowledse yourself to be in doubt whether you do understand them? You put me into the predicament of a person, who, having received many severe blows from constables, under the idea that he was some great offender, is told by them, ‘If we do not mistake, you are he that deserves to be thus treated.’ But, ’ you do mistake,’ replies the poor sufferer; ’ for I am not the man whom you take me for: and you should have been sure of your man, before you gave me the blows.’ ....

“Thus, sir,” he concludes, “Fhave answered, and, I hope, satisfactorily, your different objections: and, after all, I am so much at a loss to know what you intend to caution the world against, that, if it had not been for the last charge of a libel, I should not have felt myself called upon to take any notice of your pamphlet Let me then be permitted to ask you, What woula you caution the world against? Is it against being led by my sermon to place their hopes of salvation on a wrong basis? No. — Is it against being led to disregard good works? No. — Is it against being led to place the standard of morality too high? This, methmks, would ill become a Christian advocate, n you say, This is the thing which I would caution them against; then I say again, Point out in that sermon any one thing, which I either require or condemn, and which God himself has not required or condemned; do this, and I pledge myself, as before, publicly and immediately to recant my error.”

Having thus vindicated himself before the public, Mr. Simeon addressed the following letter to Dr. P. as the expression of his private feelings on the occasion.

CBAP. XI»] PEZVATS LSTTBR TO DR. PEARBON. 168

King’s CoUcge, Feb. 23, 1810.

“Rev. Sir, —

“I beg leave to return you my very sincere thanks for your polite note, and for the present of your new publication,* with which it was accompanied; and I request you to accept the assurance of my esteem and regard, together with the postscript to my public letter. It is indeed a matter of regret to me, that my piblic correspondence wears a different aspect from what 1 could have wished. Glad should I have been, exceeding dad, if circumstances would have allowed me to wave every unpleasant remark, and to confine myself altogether to such expressions of respect as truth would have dictated, and your general character demands.. Believe me, sir, it is painful to make any observation which may have a. tendency in any degree to lower you in the estimation of the public. I can say with truth, that though it is gratifying to me to feel my ground firm, I regret exceedingly the necessity of making it so at your expense; and account every victory itself painful, wher gained on such terms.

“To show that 1 am not unwilling to satisfy your mind privately, whilst I decline any further public controversy, I will most cheerfully assign to you my reasons for inserting in the ‘Churchman’s Confession’ the note that related to Dr. Marsh. That, which you yourself have now publicly asserted, was at the time universally understood to be the fact, namely, that Dr. Marsh’s sermons were preached professedly * in opposition to the peculiar doctrines maintained by me and my friends.’ It was not in my power to attend any of them myself, because I was always professionally engaged; but the accounts I heard from all quarters were, that the sentiments intended to be refuted were very incorrectly stated; and consequently that very erroneous opinions respecting my sentiments were circulated through the University. It was given out by Dr. Marsh himself, that he intended to publish his sermons: in which case I should have had an opportunity of disclaiming any of those sentiments, which had been erroneously imputed to me, and of vindicating those, which I really entertained. In hopes of finding such an opportunity, I waited a considerable time; but when it became very doubtful whether any such would be aflTorded me, I got a turn at St, Mary’s on purpose that I might state my sentiments fully and plainly to that audience, which had been taught to regard them with suspicion and distrust I selected a text, the most appropriate that I could find, and a subject, the most satisfactory that could be imagined, * The Confession in bur Liturgy.’ Havinff delivered the sermon, I printed it: and in a note exprested my nope, that Dr. M.’s sermons; if printed at all, might be printed precisely as they were delivered; my reason for this was, that I wished Dr. M. to know, and the University to know, that I was ready to maintain my sen-

Probably the Letter on the ‘Churchman’s Gonftsnon.”

164 PRIVATE LETTER TO DR. PEARSON. [cHAP. XI.

timents, if upon further investigation I should think them true, or to submit to his corrections of them, if they were false. That a prejudice had been excited against me and my sentiments was manifest; and if it was well-founded, I had no objection to its being confirmed; but, if it was ill-founded, I apprehend, you, yourself, sir, will think I was justified in wishing to remove it But, if Dr. M. should preach one thing and print another, it would be impossible for me to remove that prejudice by any means: the evil that had been done would remain, and I should have no remedy. But if he should not print his sermons at all, my open profession of a willingness to have my reputed sentiments exposed, was a pledge to the public, that I was not ashamed of those which I really mamtained, or afraid to discuss them even with such an able antagonist as Dr. Marsh. Had my request been made to a gentleman who merely preached an occasional sermon, and who did not professedly strike at me, it would have been unreasonable, I grant; but, in Dr. M.’s case, who had been a long time preparing his sermons, and with an avowed intention to prmt them, such a request was no other than what I might reasonably make, and no other than what equity would have required him to comply with. It imposed no necessity on him to print them; but only, in the event of his printing them, to give me a fair opportunity of answering for myself.

As you have not mentioned anything respecting a later sermon of mine, entitled The Fountain of living Waters,’ I might properly enough omit to notice it myself. But as in that, I took the liberty of stating my view of a subject, which I thought had been misstated by Dr. M. on a preceding day, I think it right to mention, that I acted precisely on the same principle as in the former case. He spoke of a whole class of people, who entertained some absurd sentiments which he controverted. Of the class that he referred to I had never heard; nor do I at this moment believe that any such persons (with the exception, perhaps, of some enthusiastic individuals) are to be found in England. What my sentiments on that subject were I stated, and openly showed, that, whoever they might be, / was not one of them. But whilst I thus turned off the shafts from myself, and showed that the errors he opposed were not countenanced by me, I did not utter a word Ihat could be construed into a reflection upon him: on the contrary, I expressed the hieh respect I bore towards him for his zeal in the cause of sacred literature, and endeavored, as far as my feeble testimony could reach, to confirm his well-earned reputation. This I thought the proper conduct to observe towards one, from whom, in other respects, I widely differed; and I can truly say, it was very gratifying to me to have so good an opportunity ef offering him my public acknowledgments.

‘’ This sir, is the kind of conduct which I would wish to see wherever a difference on religious subjects exists; and I desire.

OBAP. XI.] REPLY TO DR. PBARSON’b ‘^REMARKS.’* 105

that if our little controversy do not bring us nearer in sentiment, it may, at least, not be suffered to operate to the diminution of our mutual regard. *

In forbearing to answer your last publication, I have shown that I wish to avoid controversy: not that I desire to shun it on account of any apprehended weakness in my cause; but because I know and feel within myself (as most probably you do also,) that controversy is hurtful to the spirit: it leads us to find pleasure in detecting and exposing the errors of an adversary; and gratifies, both in the writers and readers, some of the worst passions of the heart Happy shall I be, sir, to have no occasion ever to resume it, and happy to embrace every opportunity of approving myself, in deed as well as in word,

“Sir, your most devoted servant,. C. S.”-

The controversy, however, was not yet quite ended; in a few weeks the Christian Advocate published some “Remarks,” which he forwarded to Mr. Simeon with a polite note; to which Mr. S. replies: —,

“My dear Sir, —

Permit me to return you my best thanks for the present of your * Remarks;’ and to say, that I most cordially agree with you in terminating our public correspondence. I trust that the desire of both of us is to do all the good we can whilst we are here, and to obtain, both for ourselves and others, eternal happiness hereafter: and I am persuaded that, if circumstances should ever brin us into a nearer acquaintance with each other, we should find, that the difference between us, though certainly great, is not so great as may at first sight appear. Persons who have the same general design, but differ in some particular modes of carrying it into execution, often stand more aloof from each other, than they do from persons, whose principles and conduct they entirely disapprove. Hence prejudice arises, and a tendency to mutual crimination: whereas, if they occasionally conversed for half an hour with each other, they would soon rectify their mutual misapprehensions, and concur in aiding, rather than undermining, the efforts of each other for the public good. The number of those who are zealous in the cause of religion is not so great, but that they may find ample scope for their exertions, without wasting their time in mutual contentions: and it is my earnest wish, that the only strife we may ever know in future, may be that which the apostles recommend, of ’ contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,’ and of ‘provoking one another to love and to good works.’

With these sentiments and wishes, I beg leave to subscribe myfiielf,

Dear Sir, with great respect and esteem,

“Your most obedient servant, C. S.”

106 FAITHFUL RBPEOOF. [cSAP. XI.

Thus amicably terminated a controversy, which for some months caused considerable excitement in the University; the

Eamphlets ’ running (as Mr. S. described it in a letter at the time) ke wildfire, Would that all discussions on religious topics, between earnest and serious men, were conducted in the same spirit of candor, and brought with the like courtesy and Christian feeling to a conclusion I

Mr. Simeon was not slow to express his opinions with stem fidelityp especially when dealing with young men who made a

Erofession of piety, if an occasion arose demanding a marked reuke. Such a circumstance occurred at the close of this year, when an undergraduate, with whom he was to a certain eent acquainted, hadlpeen strongly suspected of writing some very flippant comments upon the margin ol a book belonging to the College Library.

Dec. 14,1810.

Sir, —

“In your letter to me you say, * you never wrote such a paraaph to your knowledge.’ You have nothing to do but to write down the same words, and you will soon see, on a comparison of the hand- writing, whether you wrote it or not. It is evident you have been in the habit of writing in the books of the College Library. This, not to speak of the presumption, is a most flagrant breach of confidence, and deserves the most serious re-

prehension. What, if every undergraduate took the same liberty? f your conduct excited prejudice only against yourself, I should think that I had little to do with it, except in a way of private advice; but it involves the whole body of religious young men, and religion itself together with them: and therefore calls for a public testimony of my disapprobation. You are not at all aware how contrary your conduct in this matter has been to the modesty that becomes a young man, and a religious professor in particular: and I hope you will take occasion from it to mark how exceedingly defective you are in that prime ornament of a Christian character. My advice is, that you compare your hand-writing with the paragraph in question, in order to refresh your memory; and that, when you have found out the extent of your misconduct, you go to your tutor, and confess it, and humble yourself for it. ‘When you have done that, and obtained forgiveness of your college, I shall be happy to see you again upon the former footing.”