^ .^^ '^^^^' IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // >..-^ \fif y. 1.0 1.1 11.25 ^1^ riJuiy^dpiilC .Sciences Corporalion 23 VnST MAIN STRiST WilSTft,N.Y. MStO (7t«)S72-4S03 .^S^v \^ ,V \\ V '%'■ .9 J 1 I r <^^ '>>^ V CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques i t.. Technical and Bibliographic Biotas/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of fHming, are checlced below. D □ D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de oouieur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restauria et/ou peliiculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re Mure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que nertaines pages blanches ajouttes lore d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ L'Institut a microfiimA le meiHeur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normals da filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur >*ages damaged/ Pages endommagtos Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur6es et/ou peilicuiies Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pages ddcolories, tacheties ou piqudes I — I >*ages damaged/ r'~l Pages restored and/or laminated/ rri Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ t 1 P o f b t s o fi s □ Pages detached/ Pages ddtachies 0Showthrough/ Transparence Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible T si T V( t b< ri! re in Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc.. ont 6t6 filmies d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X fM« ^ 22X 26X 30X ! y ! 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iteeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies :n printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included In one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grAce A la g*n4rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives pubiiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont At6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet* de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimis sont fiimis en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous ies autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s an commandant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration et en terminant p^r la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols —► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols y signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmfo d des taux de rMuction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est fiimi A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre d'images n<§cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^(^i TITE O "aC 3ES jS "GE" OK riiK MINORITY OF THE Corporation of Crinifi) Collrge, it AGAINST THIO llF.SOLdnON Approving of tlie Theological Teacliin'liiiit( Iri neither unsound, nnscriptural, con- trary to tlic doctrines of llie Ctmreli of En^li^nd, dangcH'ous in itH tendency, nor leading to tlio Cliurcli of Konio." Before coming to a vote upon the question of the theological teaching of the College, the Corporation placed the objections made b^i the Bishop of Huron to the teaching, and the pamphlets published by the Provost in reply to these objections, in the hands of the five (.'anudian Bishops, and requested them to state whether, in their opinion, such teaching was dangerous to the students of the College. These liight Reverend Prelates fur- nished their opinions, and four of them were regarded by a majority oftlie Corporation, as expressing approvid of the views contained in the Provost's pamphlets, against which the minority of the Corporation were conscientiously compelled to entor their Protest. Seven of the eight members of the Corporation who voted against the resolution united in ti Protest against it. It has appeared to the pi'otesting parties that it is due to themselves and to the church at large, that the Protest should be made public, and it is thought right also that the opinions of the Bishops should appear together with the Protest, that their true value may be ascertained by comparison with the doctrines protested against. They are therefore included in an appendix. A few quotations bearing upon the subjects discussed, which were brought before the Corporation on the 29th Sept., are ap- pended in the form of notes, to these the attention of the reader is requested. PllOTlvST. M We whose names are hereunto attached being members of the Corporation of Trinity College, Toronto, do enter our HoIt-inn protest ag.M.inst the resolution passed by a m;ij()rity of thirteen to eight, at a meeting of tlie Corponition held on the 29th dtiy of September 1SG3. which resolution expressed the entire ccniidenee of the Corporation in the soundness and scriptural character of the Theological teaching of the institution. We feel ourselves bound to record this our solemn protest against said resolution for the following reasons : 1st, Because the Provost who is also Divinitv IVofessor teaches young men (whether intended for the sacred ministry or not), things concerning the Virgin Mary, the blessed mother of our Lord, for which he has no warrant in Cod's word, or in the formularies of our Church. The entire silence of the inspired historians, and of our Church upon these subjects, is not to be regarded as leaving them open questions, upon which uninspired men may speculate at pleasure ; but rather as an intimation of the mind of the Holy Spirit, that a modest and respectful silence should be observed concerning them. Satan has already made the bold and unauthorized conjectures of men who, affecting to be wise above what is written, have rashly speculated upon these subjects, his instrument for introducing the worst form of idolatry. We therefore think that it is not safe for the instruct- ors of our young men to set them an example of speculating upon subjects which the sacred writers and Reformers of our Church have by their silence taught us to avoid. 4 'Jil. Ii('ctius>> tilt' I'rovost lioMs and leaclios, that it iw "' ii ino?;[ wiinlysoiiii' and tMlilyini,^ thought, tliatour ck'partod friends, whi) nave died in tlie faith and fearof ired men should not rashly speculate, and our Church, (in the 2d Jlomily concerning prayer) teaches, " For Christ sitting in lieaven hath an everlasting Priesthood, and always prayeth to his Father for them that are penitent, obtain- ing by virtue of his wounds, which are evermore in the sight of Ood, not only, perfect remission of our sins, but also all other ■■ necessaries that we lack in this world; so that this only media- tor is sutii(;ient in heaven and needeth no other to help him." And again, noticing the argument from charity so much relied on by the ]:*rovost, "yet thou wilt object further, that the saints in heaven do pray for us, and that their prayer proceedeth from an earnest charity, that they have towards their brethren on earth; whereto it may be well answ-ered, first, that no man knoweth whether they do pray for us or no, and if any will go about to prove it by the nature of charity, concluding that because they did pray for men on earth, therefore they do much more the same now in heaven, then may it be said by the same reason that as oft as we do weep on earth they do also weep in heaven, because while they lived in this world it is most certain and sure they did pj." We cannot but regard the teaching of the Provost that it is in the highest degree probable from reason and Holy Scripture, that the saints in heaven, moved by an earnest charity do pray for us, as directly opposed to this explicit statement of our Church on this subject. 3d. Because the Provost holds and teaches that the pardon of sins obtained from God by " the penitent when he truly con- fesses them and pleads for forgiveness in the name of Christ," " cannot rightly be regarded as being other than contingent and 1 m provisional^ though Kufficiont for our immetlijito necessity," and that the iibsolutioii pronounced by the Priest is to bo regarded aa more than duchirative, even as a full and effective conveyance of pardon to the penitent. 'IMiis doctrine is in strict accordance with that of the Church of Kouie, as set forth in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as follows, " unlike the authority given io the Priests of the old law to declare the leper cleansed from his leprosy, the power with which the Priests of the now law are invested is not simply to declare that sins are forgiven, but as the ministers of God really to absolve from sin a power which God himself the author and source of grace and justification exercises through their ministry." The statements quoted with approved by the I'rovost " Heaven waits and expects the Priests sentence here on earth," and the Lord follows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds and looses hero on earth, the Lord confirms in heaven." " The Apostles and in them all Priests are made God's vicege- rents here on earth in his name and stead, to retain and remit sins, however consistent with the doctrine of the Church of liome, cannot by any ingenuity be made to agree with the following statements of the Church of England, which we find in the 2d part of the Homily of Kepentance." " If we uill with a sorrowful and contrite heart make an unfeigned confession of them unto God^ He will freely and frankly forgive them, and so put all our wickedness out of remembrance before the sight of his majesty, that they shall no more be thought upon." And again, speaking in the same Homily of St. Ambrose we read, " whereby this Holy Father doth understand that both the Priesthood and the Law being changed, we ought to acknow- ledge none other Priest for deliverance from our sins, but our Saviour Jesus Christ, who being our sovereign Bishop, doth with the sacrifice of his body and blood oflfered once for ever upon the altar of the cross, most effectually cleanse the spiritual leprosy, and wash away the sins of all those that with true con- fession of the same do flee unto hira." To make the full and effectual pardon of sin to depend upon the absolution of the Priest, has ever been the policy of that Church which maintains that there is no salvation without the 6 Priest, tlic Church of Kiii^^hmd bL-HcvoH mul leaches the very opj)osito doctrine.* 4th. JiccaiKse tiie Provost holds and teaches " that Baptism is ihe indrument vvhcrehy (rod imparts to us tlie grace of justitica- tion." Tliat while he iiolds " the doctrine of justification through faith only," ho " at the same time recognizes the sacrament of IJajitism as the indrument whereby God confers this grace." Whereas, our Church teaches that it it' recjuired of persons to be baptized that they have I'epontance and faith before the sacra- ment of baptism can be administered to them ; if they havefaith, they are already justified before God, and they receive the sign of Baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which they had while yet unbaptized. To say with our church that they have the faith which justifies before they are baptized, and yet to teach that Baptism is the instrument, whereby God confers this grace of justification is only, in appearance, to retjiin the doctrine of " jusiificaiion by faith alonii," but in reality to trans- fer to baptism the office of justification, which our Church every- where ascribes to faith in Christ alone, as " the only mean and instrument of salvation, which God has appointed in his \Vord."t * IIooki;r in the "Ecclesiastical Polity" Book VI. Cli. VI. 12, thus deals with this subject, " But when they which are thus belbrehand pardontui ot God, come to be also assoiled by the Piir^t, I uo'.ild Icnmv what loicf his absohilioti hiilh in this case '; Arc they able lo .-ay llial the Priest dotli remit anything! Yet wlnii any of ours ascrihelh the work ol" remission lo God, and intorprcteth ihu' Priests sentence to be but a solemn declaration of that which God hath already performed, they scorn at it.'' And again, " Abso- lution they say, declareth indeed, but this is not all, for it likewise maketh innocent ; which addition Xnnivj; an untruth proved, our truth granted hath, we hope sulliciency without it, and consequently our opinion (herein neither to be challenged as untrue, nor as iasulheient." Again, wherefore, the further we wade, the belter wc see it still appear, that the Priest doth never in absolution, no not so much as by way of service and ministry really either forgiv'e the act, take away the uncleanness, or remove the punishment of sin, but if the party penitent come contrite, he haih, by their own grant, absolu- tion before absolution; if not contrite, although Ihe Priest .should, ten thousand times absolve him, all were in vain. For which cause the ancien- ter and better .sort o( tiieir School divines, Abulensis, Alex. Hales, Bonaven- ture, ascribe, the real absolution of sin and eternal punishm(;nt to the mere pardon of Almighty God, without uependency upon the Priest's absolution as a cause to effect the same." t Bishop Jewel in his " Defence of Apology," Page 463, " Parker's Soci- ety," thus sets before us the scriptural view of baptism, quoting the words of St. Jerome, he says, " The minister being a man giveth only the water: but God giveth the Holy Ghost, whereby the sins be washed away," and again, " If any man have received only the bodily washing of water, that is out- wardly seen with the eye, he hath not put on the Lord Jesus Christ." r)tli. Bocaiiso the Ppovosi IkiM.s jiiuI loaclius ihat in ilio Saora- moiil of llio LoidV Slipper [mj iaitlifiil rcn^ipitnit in made partaker of tlio j^Morifii'd iHiiaaiiity of our l.(»r(l, and ilial llio Jloly Coiii- iiiunioii is " M^ appointed »ii'ii7is, and fhc on/i/ nieam wlioniby Jloly Scri])ture assured uh iliat we (sliall receive ilie snpeinatural f'ift," and Hpeakin<^of he s[»iriMi:il Mandueation of ihe tleijliof Christ, vshieii ho has given for 'he life of ihe world, lie sjiys " if we seareh ihe New Tesiaineni ihroii^^di d(» we ^\\(\ any othr niodv or mean of Hucli feedinjL,' j)rescril)ed or even hinied al ?" " Whereas, our Cliureh teaches in the 'h{ Staiiion of the Pas- sion." "Here is the mean whereby we nius' apply the frniis of Christ's death, unto our deadly wound, here is the niean wh ;oby wo must oblain elernal lif(^ : namely /rt //A." " By ihis then you may well perceive I ha' the only mean and instnimmt of salvation, required on your pans in faiths " I-.et us then use that mean which (lod has appoinied in liis word, to wit, the mean of faith which is the only itis^rument of salvation now lofi unto us/' And our blessed Lord in the C;h chapter of Sr. John's Gospel 47 and 48 verses teaches. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everhisting life, I am that bread of life," and in the 51st verse, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever; and (he bread that 1 will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," and in the 58 h verse, " This is that bread which came down from heaven ; not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead; he thai eaielhof ihis bread shall live for- ever." Comparing these sialements of our Lord, with that in verse 85th, "Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life; he that Cometh unto me shall never hunger ; and he that believeth oti me shall never thirst," and wiih the explanation of the figure which our Lord gives in verse 63d, " It is the spirit that quickenelh, tlie flesh profiteih nothing; iho words tha^ I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." In these words we have not only a " hinf^ of a mode of spiritual participation of Christ ; but direct and plain instructions from our blessed liord that this spiritual mandueation was to be effected by coming to him and believing upon him, it is thus we are to feed upon him in our hearts by faith. In entire agreement with this are the words of St. Aug- ustine, quoted with approval by Bishop Jewel ' crede ct man- 8 1 ducasti,' croflcro in christiiin est miiMdiH'arc icmein viviim.'' The stutunxMitof tlu- JVovost that we do not find any otlior niodo or moan of spiritually It'cdinjjf upon CiiriHt preHcribod or even hinted at in (iod's Word, ignores all the other means \vliieli God has j)rovided in liis Churth, thus making the inaintcnanco of Hjiiritiial life in the soul of the believer, (solely and exelunively to depend on the reception of the Saerament of the JiOrd'H Su[)j)er. '^I'ln' other means of feeding upon the bread of lile which (iod h:(S njjpointed, and which our Churcli everywhere recognizes are Ist, 'JMie rending of JLoly Scriptures, " whicli are able to make wise unto Kalvatiou, through faitli wliich is in Christ Jesus. 2d. The hearing the Oospi^l [ircaehcd by God'H Ministers. For " faith cometh by hearing." 3d. Private and ])ublie ])ray( r. For our Lord promises, " where two or three are gathered together ■ in my name tliero am I in the midst of them." 4th. Kellgious communion and intercourse with pious servants of God, for we read, " They that feared tlic Lord spake often one to another, and tlie Lord hearkened and heard it," &c. While we are ever to regard the Sacrament of tlie Lord's Supper as a blessed mean of grace, we arc not to ignore those other means which God, in his goodness, has provided for his people. 6th. Because the Provost holds and ieaches that the sacraments are " God's appointed moans of salvation, the channels in which liis grace flows to us." Whereas, the doctrine of our church concerning the sacra- ments, as set forth in the Homily " of Common Prayer and Sacraments" is, that they are "holy signs," and referring to the words of St. xVugustine, the Homily saith, "By these w'ords of St. Augustine it appeareth that he alloweth the common descrip- tion of a sacrament, which is, that it is a visible sign, of an invisible grace ; that is to say, that setteth out to the eyes and other outward tenses, the inward working of God's free mercy, and doth, as it were, seal in our hearts the promiees of God, and so was circumcision a sacrament, which preached unto the out- wai'd senses the inward cutting away of the foreskin of the heart, and sealeu and made sure in the hearts of the circumcised the promise of God touching the promised seed that they looked for." In Article xxvii. we are taught "that they that receive bap- i i n 9 3d 3y tism rightly arc grafted into tho Church, the promises of tho forgiveness of sin, and of our !uloptif>n to bo tho sons of (iod by tho Holy Gliost, are visibly signed and sealed, faith (b((fort^ in exercise) is conlirniod, and grace (before enjoyed) increased by virtue of prayer unto God," and in the xwiii. Article, tho spiritual inanducation of Christ's body and b.lood is restricted " to such as rightly, worthily, and with faitli^ receive tho holy sacrament. To teach more than this concerning the Sacraments is to assign to them a place in the ('hrislian system which fJod never intended them to occupy, and to introdu<'e into our Church the doctrine of sacramental salvation which is the most pernicious error of tho Church of Komo.* 7th. liecause the Provost holds and teaches that there are " admirable early usages which our lleformers did not venture to restore, such as that mentioned by Justin Martyr, the con- veyance of the consecrated elements to all sick members of tlio Church, after every public celebration of the eucharist," and " that we might ivell 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 tho grievous abuses which preceded the Reformation, was to abridge our liberty and to deprive us of good things which might have been safely enjoyed in happier times." We cannot think that such teaching as this is calculated to make young men loyal and devoted adherents of the Church of England, as she now is and has been since the Reformation^ they will learn from it to regret the absence of those " admiru e usages,''^ which the Church of I^]ngland at the Reformation did not restore, and to desire those " good things''' of which we are now deprived. It was such a feeling as this which lately led some clergymen of the diocese of Exeter, to restore the usage mentioned by the same Justin Martyr of mixing water with the wine in the cele- bration of the Lord's Supper, and we entirely concur in the * natu Bishop Jewel in his controversy with Harling, thus explains the true ^..vjre of the sacraments in Page 132. "Parker Society." " Howbeit, in plain speech it is not the '•cceiving ofihe sacrament (liatworkcth our joining with God. For whosoever is not joined to God before he receive the sacra- ments, he eateth and drinketh his own judgment. The sacraments be seals and witnesses, and not properly the cause.s of this conjunction." \fi', f 10 following remarks made on such conduct by the aged BiPhop of that Diocese. « At the time of the Reformation it did not please the Church of England to continue the practice of mixmg water with the wine; and you are the ministers of that Church and bound to obey the orders of that Church, and have promised to do so, and let me urge those who are conscious of havmg diso- beyud that Church to be more regular in the future, and to re- member that they have promised to perform these ordmances of the Church in the way the Church has appointed." The teach- ing of Divinity Professors in our Colleges should inculcate the same spirit of loyal attachment to the Church as she is, and of entire obedience to her orders, as breathes in thebe words of tho aged Prelate ; instead of teaching young men that they might "well regret admirable early usages, ' which the Church at the Reformation did not restore, and that they might desire " those good things" of which we are now deprived. For these reasons we feel it incumbent on us to ..nter our protest against the resolution passed by this Corporation, at the meeting ^^Id on the 29th of September 1863. BENJ. HURON, CHAS. C. BROUGH, A. M., Archdeacon of London, C. W ., F. WM. SANDY'S, D.D., M. BOOMER, L. L. D., H. J. GRASETT, B. D. J. WALKER MARSH, M. A., ST. GEORGE CAULFIELD, L. L. D. sr d ,0 0- e- of h- he of ho ;ht he )8e )ur the OPINIONS OF THE CANADIAN BISHOPS. (I.) The Opinion op the Bishop of Montreal. duEBEc, 22nd June, 1863. My Lord Bishop, I have looked carefully through the documents your Lordship forwarded to me whilst I was in England, together with the resolution of the Corpora- tion respecting the controversy on the subject of Trinity College. I was asked to examine them, and declare whether I considered the doct- rines inculcated therein by the Provost "were unsound or unscriptural, contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, or dangerous in their tendency, or leading to the Church of Rome." Under the circumstances of the reierence, and having myself no jurisdic- tion or authority whatever in the corporation, 1 can only here give expression to my own individual opinion, which I now proceed to do as best I may be able, and with an earnest desire to promote the cause of truth, and do what is just and right. I would, however, at the oustet, remark that my enquiry has necessarily b«en a limited one; for only some particujprs of the Provost's theological teaching, Avhich are either objected to by the Bishop of Huron, or vindicated bv the Provost in the pamphlets forwarded to me, have now been brought under my consideration. It will be needful to bear this in mind, for other- wise it might appear that the points submitted to me occupy a far larger portion of the Provost's teaching than they actually do, which would be unfair alike to him and to the College. This is very strongly and properly urged by the Provost himself, at the close of his first letter to your Lordship: " In conclusion, (he says), I wish to observe that the present controversy is very likely to convey, to the public in general, the impression, that, if false doctrine has not been taught in the College, yet at least undue prominence and exaggerated importance have been given to matters of very secondary moment. Your Lordship is well aware that it is not my teaching, but the Bishop of Huron's strictures upon if- tvhich have given this prominence and importance to the matters in question. I do not say this by way of com- plaint, but simply in self-defence, and for the purpose of abating a not unreasonable prejudice. The objections are, for the most pan, based on a few short and scattered clauses, not one of which I am prepa. :d to retract, but vhich I should be very sorry to have made the principal, or even prom- inent, topics of my teaching." The means, again, with which I am furnished for discovering what is the 12 Piovosi'.s K'uchinq respt'cting any of the points in question, are to some ex- lent insuflicicnl niul unsatislaclory. Tlu'y consist of objections made by the Bishop of Huron, and of the reply of the Provost, which latter it is evident, must Hike the form of explanation, or exception, or vindication, rather tiian of direct statement. In saying this it is not intended to convey the impression that any attempt has been made by the Provost to conceal his opinions or teaching, on the contrary, there is manifestly every endeavor and desire to be open, clear, ami straight-forward, But when theological q'jestions are treateUin the shape of objections and rejoinders, and especially, as in the present case, if these questions are but portions of far larger subjects, obscurity and imperfection or exaggeration of statement, in a greater or less degree, will often occur. In the first place, then, I find that several of the points in the Provost's teaching, to which strong objection has been taken, have reference to matters about which the Church is entirely silent. They are in fact private opinions, respecting which differences may exist, without any blame attach- ing to any one. They certainly must never be made " the principal or prominent topics" ol the professor's teaching. If they are entertained, it should be with moderation, and when mentioned, treated with discretion. Thus the Provost is charged with undue exaltation of the Virgin, in conse- quence of his teaching respecting Miriam, as being a type of Mary : and again of " leading young men in Rome-word direction," because he taught " the probable Intercpssion of Saints." These both are undoubtedly mere private opinions. But to shew that he was on his guard against any such evil consequences, as those which he is charged, he appeal ., respecting the Virgin Mary, " most confidently to the theological students generally, in proof of the assertion, that he has ever strongly condemned these grievous errors of the Church of Rome, which assign to the blessed Virgin any othar place in the economy of human redemption, than that of a humble, yet most honored instrument, in the hand of Him, who made her thus instrumental, by causing her to be the mother of our Lord." And in regard to the Inter- cession of Saints, the Provost says, he " must speak of it as a probable opinion : that when speaking of the error of the Invocation of Saints, he must necessarily refer to the intercession of the departed on our behalf." He thinks that this is necesr>ary, because the correct and secure line of defence is to admit such probability, and then shew that this does in no way tend to justify, or even to palliate the erroneous practice (of Invocation) against which all English Churchmen contend. So again, with respect to "the participation in the glorified humanity of our Lord, by means of the Lord's Supper." This doctrine, uo doubt, has been held and taught by some groat divines, as is well known to every theologian. When held modestly, and spoken of with that reverential carefulness of thought and expression, whicli an attempt to explain so great a mystery demands, it deserves to be regarded with respect. But it should be remembered that it is a doctrine, which belongs not to theology in the strict sense of the word, but to theologi- cal philosophy, if we m^-y so term it; and ought never to be pressed with positiveness, nor set up as a standard of orthodoxy. As to what our Church does teach on this subject, there ought to be no doubt. She affirms that the union betwixt Christ and his Church, is so real, so intimate, so perfect, that "we dwell in Chiist, and Christ in us, we are one with Christ, and Christ with us." And this union, the sole source of spiritual life, she believes is with one Christ, who is ever perfect God, and man. But whether that union is, in any special way, with our Lord's glorified humanity, and not His divinity, she hzz r.tver taken upon herself to determine. Here, as in so many other instances, she has been satisfied with declaring the fact itself, so marvelous, so blessed, without making any attempt to explain it : a fact to be accepted with faith and adoration and love, to our eternal benefit, rather than made matter of speculation. la like :& 18 manner nothing can be more unfaltering and clear, than the testimony of the Church of England, as to tho Sacrsunijnl of the Body and Blood of Christ, being the appointed visible mcuiis for maintaining this union between the Saviour and his faithful people. But " how these things are," she does not expressly define. The subject is one which certainly requires very careful mental training, or some peculiar aptitude for its right appre- heu,;ion, even if it be thought desirable to refer to it as a subject for devout reflection and study, when the mind shall have become matured by time and discipline. Whether we may agree with the Provost or not in any such opinions, respecting which the Church is silent, yet I do not feel that we have any right to condemn them, though I should in the very strongest manner disapprove, if they, or oihcrs of a similar class, were made to assume " prominence or importance" in a professor's teaching ; of which, however, I have no evidence before me, and the Provost himself expressly denies that they have ever been permitted to assume any such character. There is one passage, under the head of" Priestly Absolution," respecting which I should have wished for further explanation. The Provost speaks ot •' the pardon accorded in private confession to God, as contingent and pro- visional, though suflicient for our immediate necessity ; while its more full and formal conveyance is reserved to follow in that confession, which is made, when we assemble and meet together as members of a divinely insti- tuted organization to receive the gifts, and to avail ourselves of the ministries, which pertain to the body of Christ." Now it is no doubt to be presumed, in the case of all truly penitent sinners, who may have confessed their sins unto God in private, whatever fullness of mercy may then have been bestowed upon them, that they will, at the earliest opportunity, seek also to make confession to God in the public services of the Church ; and the neglect of such act of solemn and prescribed worship would go far to prove that their previous sense of sin, and its acknowledgment, had been in some measure themselves imperfect, and therefore wanting in their complete results to them. But certainly the Church has never attempted to explaia exactly the nature of the blessing, which is annexed to public confession, or nicely to adjust its relation to that pardoP: which God may be pleased at the time to bestow upon all true penitent sinners, whenever, or wherever they turn to Him. Great care seems to have been taken by such divines, as the authors of the Homilies, and the Ecclesiastical Polity, to guard against the doctrine that, by words of Absolution, " all things else are perfected to the taking away of sin." I have only further to remark, that I believe th -re is no suspicion that any one of the students who have now during twelve years been subjected to the Provost's teaching, has left the Communion of the Church of England to join the Church of Rome; and as far as I can judge of the general tenor of his teaching, from the text and spirit of the documents before me, whatever difTerence of opinion I may entertain on some points, respecting which a liberty i& allowable to all, I should not believe it to be such as would be likely to Ijad to any such result. Believe me, My Lord Bishop, Yours very faithfully, and sincerely, P. MONTREAL. The Lord Bishop of Toronto, President of Trinity College, Toronto. 1^1 14 (II.) Thk Opinion of tub Bishop op Toronto. Toronto, 1st July, 1863. My Lord Bishop, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's judgment on the case submitted to yon by the Corporation of Trinity College, andin so doing, I would express my grateful sense of the careful con-iideralion which you have given to it, and my satisfaction on finding that your Lordship's views are so much in unison with the opinions which I have always held on the subject. Adverting to your observation that " strong objection has been taken against the Provost's teaching in reference to matters about which the church is entirely silent, and which are private opinions, respecting which differences may exist without blame attaching to any; though they certainly must never be made the principal or prominent topics of the Piofessor's teaching," I may be permitted to stale that I am aware that no undue prominence or import- ance has been given to these matters of opinion by the Provost, and that on the numberless points in the interpretation of Holy Scripture on which the church furnishes us with no particular and explicit instruction, he has made it a rule to comply with her general requirement " to teach nothing but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and that which the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have gathered from that doc- trine." I am at a loss to conceive in what other way than this a cautious and reverent spirit is to be discovered by one whose duly it is to enter on the wide field of examining and elucidating the meaning of Holy Scripture ; more especially if he obeys the rule given above, in its spirit as well as its letter, by diligently acquainting himself, as I know the Provost to have done, with the opinions of the great divines of our reformed church, men alike of learning and of moderation. I naturally assume, as your Lordship has, no doubt afler a full considera- tion of the subject, abstained from making any reference to four out of the eight divisions under which the Bishop of Huron's objections are classed, that you take no exception to the Provost's replies on these divisions, and as I am equally persuaded of the Provost's soundness and integrity in interpre- ting the liturgical and doctrinal language of our church, I consider his defence on these points to be unanswerable Again expressing my deep obligation to your Lordship for the considera- tion which you have given to the documents submitted to your judgment, I have the honor to be. My Lord Bishop, , Your Lordship's faithful servant, JOHN TORONTO. To the Right Rev. F, Pulford, D. D., Lord Bishop of Montreal, and Metropolitan. 15 (III.) The Opinion op tub Bishop op Huron. My Lord Bishop, Having read the reply of Provost Whitaker to the objections which I brought to the theological leaching of Trinity College, I feel constrained to express my opinion that the Provost has not succeeded in proving to my satisfuclion that the theological teaching is not dangerous to the young men educated in that institution. 1 find the Provost avowing the same opinions, and supporting them by nearly the same arguments as he employed in his , letters to the Lord Bishop ol Toronto. It is not now my purpose to go over the same ground which I traveled in my former paper, now in the hands of the Corporation ; I shall merely notice a few points in the Provost's reply, which I desire to bring clearly before the Corporation. In page 21 of the published pamphlet the Provost introduces the subject of the catechism, and says, " I must further observe that the Bishop does not correctly describe the document, &c." I should not again advert to the cate- chism, but that the Provost has thus introduced it, I will only add with regard to it that the Provost himself states that he lent his questions, more than once, thus the students were in possession of one part of the catechism, the other they supplied from their notes of the lectures. The Provost quotes from a letter which he received from the Rev. J. Middleton, in which that gentleman says, "He (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 caution 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 erroneous conclusions." I have now before me Mr, Middleton's answers to the questions which I proposed to him, and the letter which accompanied his catechism, and there is no such caution in either of them, on the conir&ry I And him thus describing the extreme care which he and others adopted, to obtain an accurate copy of the Provost's questions, and of the answers to them. " The Provost lent his questions, not the manuscript from which he leciures, to Messrs. Jones, Badgely and myself, for the first time they were ever lent, and did so under a sort of protest ; we borrowed them to correct the 50 or 60 questions at the end, upon which the Provost had not questioned us for want of time at the end of the year; we never needed them al any other time, as we united in taking down the notes, taking every third sentence when we could not each get it all ; when we could we took down the substance of the entire paragraph, as it rendered the recording of them afterwards more expeditious." And in his letter of August, 1st, 1860, he says, "I forward with the notes answers to the questions handed me by the Rector last night, but in answering them, I must say that I do not wii^a to be at all implicated in the matter, as of course your Lordship must know quite well that every graduate's love of his Alma Mater is strong, and that they are, very often, wilfully blind to many of her faults." I think Mr. Middleton's letters, as the Provost says, " furnish ample means of testing the correctness of the statements" which I made concerning the catechism. With reference to the undue exaltation of the Virgin Mary, while the Provost condemns as unscriptural and likely to lead to great error an answer which is found in every copy of the catechism which has come under my notice, he has not repudiated the error contained in the question which called forth that answer, and which was copied by the students from his manuscript. " Shew that she may be regarded as occupying under the old dispensation a position typical of that of Mary under the new." I sh^U make no further remark on this first " probable opinion,"' taught and maintained by the Provost. The second opinion is " The probable intercession of departed saints for 16 us," The Provost claims, that scripture and reason are on his side in up- holding this article of his teaching. He says of this opinion in page 'J(i, " a persuasion which all reasoning from analogy confirms, and which the Word of God, though it docs mit expiessly sanction, goes very far to establiafh" — and in page '28, " But I have said that Holy vScripture goes far to make this opinion in the highest degree probable." And yet Pearson one of the Pro- vost's chosen authorities, states, " that it is not revealed unto us in Scripture, nor can be concluded by necessary deduction from any principle of Chris- tianity;" and Archbishop Tillotson, as quoted by the Provost in page 78, speaking upon the same subject, says, " but that they do so is more than can be proved either by clear testimony of scripture or by any convincing argu- ment of reason, and therefore no doctrine or practice can be safely grounded upon it." How the statement that " scripture and reason go very far to establish" this doctrine, and render il in the highest degree probable, can stand in the lace of the Provost's own quotations, I leave to the Corporation to decide. But the Provo.st has appealed to the Word of God, and has quoted the parable, or, as he calls it, " the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus," as pointing to the conclusion that the saints m heaven pray lor us. It may be asked, by whom was the prayev mentioned in the parable oflered 1 Not by a saint in glory, but by a .spirit in torment. How did Abraham, the saint in glory, receive it "? Did he, being peri'^ct in knowledge and in charity, at once yield to the earnest solicitations of his kinsman in behalf of tho.se who were his own flesh and blood 7 Did he intercede with God for them 1 No, he replied, "they hav'e Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them." Abraham wpII knew that they had all that God in his wisdom and love had provided for their spiritual enlightenment, and that more, consistently with the divine attributes, could not be asked for them. Thus, while the con- demned spirit, in his ignorance, interceded for his brethren in this world, the father of the faithful being now perfect in knowledge, refused to interfere for his own descendants, who were upon earth, surrounded by danger, and ex- posed to temptation. If we regard Abraham in the parable as a true repre- sentative of the .saints departed, we must conclude that it is in the highest degree probable that saints in glory do not think it their duty to intercede for those who are still upon this earth. This is the only argument from Scripture which the Provost has adduced to prove that it is in the highest degree probable that departed saints in glory pray fcr those on the earth. " Priestly Absolution" is the next point treated of in the Provost's reply. He says in page 30, "I have no wish, however, to disguise my conviction that the Bishop of Huron does not agree with me in the sense which he at- taches to the word ' declaratory.' " The Provost is right. It is plain that the absolutions in the public services of our Church are general declarations of God's mercy to penitent sinners, and that he (God) pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly lepent and unfeignedly believe his Holy Gospeh There is nothing in them which can with propriety be understood to convey the pardon of the particular sins of any individual. The sense in which the word " declaratory" is to be understood may be gathered from these words of Becon, the learned Chaplain of Archbishop Cranmer, " What other thing is it to preach the gospel, than to declare unto the people that their sins be forgiven them freely of God if they repent and believe in Christ 1" And again, " if sins be forgiven of God, and the minis- ters commandec* to declare the same unto the people, then doth it follow that they forgive not the sin, but only are ministers appointed of God to publish the benefit of our salvation." Such is the sense in which I understand the word " declaratory." God pardons the sinner when he believes. The minis- ter declares this truth publicly for the strengthening of the faith ot those who have already received this blessing at the hand of God. But the Provost 17 evidently puts a very diflercnt intorprt-lfition on the woru, for we find him stating in page 31, " that my view is that of the Church, may be gathered Irom the I'uct that while she permits n Deacon to read the sentences of Holy Scripture, she forbids his pronouncing the Absolution." Surely the Provost must be aware that the Church nowhere •' I'orbids " the Deacon to read the Absolution. There is no " regulation " of the Church which prohibits the Deacon from using this part oi the service. Custom has established this as a mark of distinction between the Deacon and the Priest, but there is no law or rubric of the Church concerning it. In " Stephens on the Laws relating to the Clergy," we thus read : " It is not however clear from the Book of Common Prayer, whether, or how far, the Deacon is prohibited thereby to pronounce the absolution. For although it is there directed that the same shall be pronounced by the Priest alone, yet the word alone in that place, seems only to intend that the people shall not pronounce the absolution after the Priest as they did the conlession just before ; and the word Priest through- out the rubrics does not seem to be generally appropriated to a person in Priest's ordcjrs only. Or *he contrary, almost immediately after it is directed that the Priest shall say the Gloria Pairi," &c. The argument of the Provost therefore gathered /row ^/ic/ac/, that the Church "prohibits" the Deacon from reading the absolution falls to the ground, and some more stable basis must be sought for it. The Provost objects to my statement of the mode in which Divine forgive- ness is obtained. " The sinner who truly repents and believes the Gospel is fully pardoned and accepted by God, hi sins and iniquities are blotted out forever." In page 33, he thus states his own view : "I believe that God forgives the sins of the penitent when he truly confesses them, and pleads for forgiveness in the name of Christ, under any circumstances.''^ This confes- sion of faith which substantially agrees with mine, to which the Provost ob- jects, is altogether rendered void by the distinction which he has drawn between private and public confession and pardon, to the prejudice of the former. In page 34, he thus writes, " Can we rightly conceive of the pardon accorded on private confession to God, as heiny other than contingent and prt nsional, though svjfficient for our immediate necessity ?" Here we are taught that after the sinner has made full confession of his si;is to God with deepest contrition of soul and in the exercise of a living faiih rn Christ, he is still to regard his pardon as contingent and conditional until h-i has obtained Absolution from the Priest. Upon what is his pardon contingent 1 Plainly upon Priestly Absolution. It is not to be regarded as perfect without this. I have been furnished with the following siatemeiit of the doctrine of the Church of Rome on the subject of private ana public confession by a gentle- man for many years a Priest of that Church, now a Clergyman of the Church of England. " God grants Absolution to private confession and contrition only condition- ally. The pardon granted to private confession to God is only contingent and provisional, providing only for the immediate necessity, while its full and authoritative conveyance is still withheld and reserved to follow on Sacramental confession. This Sacramental confession may be made in many w'ays, either kneeling or standing, or walking in private or in public, the manner in which it is made does not matter, provided it is made with the intention of obtaining Priestly Absolution. It is by no means the auricular manner of confessing that constitutes the essence of Sacramental confession." This doctrine corresponds so nearly with that taught by the Provost that I feel myself constrained to denounce such teaching as unscriptural, and in the highest degree dangerous to the students of the College. In his objections to my view of the pardon of sin the Provost urges the confessions which we are taught to make in our services from day to day, not only of the sins ot the day, but of our past lives, as incompatible with the 3 18 view which I have set forth. But does not the Provost see that the same objection would equally lie against his view of what he calls the full pardon conveyed to the sinner in the public Absolution 1 The believer is rightly and piously taught in our services to confess continually his sins before God, and to bewail ihein with deep humility of soul, and this he is to do, "most chietiy" when lie unites with the congregation in public worship. Although he may at the same time believe that these sins were pardoned and washed in the blood of Christ when he first came in faith and repentance to him. The Provost must allow tliat the sinner, after he has had the public absolu- tion of the Priest, upon which he teaches the pardon of the believer in Christ to be contingent is yet called upon to confess again aud again the same sins from which he has been publicly absolved. This objection of the Provost, then, tells as strongly against his view of the full and effectual pardon con- veyed in the public absolution of the Priest as against that of the free pardon of all sin enjoyed by every penitent sinner who exercises faith in Christ and pleads his blood before the mercy seat of God. The Provost asks in page 32, " Does he (the Bishop of Huron) 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 1" I answer I know nothing of the kind, for I find all Roman Catholic divines basing the necessity of confession on the Priestly power of Absolution, and not as the Provost says. Absolution on confession. They reason thus, Christ has given power tvj the Priest to absolve from sin, therefore the sinner must confess to him. The essence of the Romish doctrine consists in the absolving power of the Priest. Confes. ion is a matter of direct logical deduction. It matters not whether this confession be auricular, private or public, that is a question of discipline which the Church may rriodify according to circum- stances. All, therefore, which the Prcvost has said upon auricular confession, and his indignant repudiation of this practice is without point, as in no wise interfering with the doctrine of Priestly Absolution. While the Provost states that he does not hold himself responsible for all the expressions which occur in the quotations from his authorities, still he has undertaken to defend the most objeclionuble passages which occur in thf.ir writings : " Heaven waits and expects the Priest's sentence here on earth." And " the Lord follows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds and looses here on earth, the Lord confirms in heaven." " The Apostles and in them all Priests were made God's vicegerents here on earth in his name and stead to retain and remit sins." " When therefore the Priest absolves God absolves if we be truly penitent." Whether the pleading of the Provost and his labored explanations of these statements will have the effect of convincing the Corporation that such teaching as this is not danger- ous to young men, it is not for me to decide. On the 5th head, " The Grace of the Sacraments," the Provost maintains the doctrine of Baptismal Justification. He fully adopts and defends the opinion embodied in the passage from Waterland, as quoted by him in his letter to the Bishop of Toronto : "Are we not all of us, or nearly all (ten thousand to one) baptized in infancy, and therefore regenerated and justified of course." This teaching I must ever condemn. In page 49, the Provost states, "Melancthon calls justification by faith a correlative term to salvation by grace. If, then, salvation by grace do not necessarily exclude means whereby that grace is conveyed, so neither will justification by faith." The terms are indeed correlative, but they are not therefore convertible. The necessary relation which they bear to each other will appear from the following explanation : Salvation is by grace, i. e., by the unmerited mercy and gratuitous favor of God, and justification, without which salvation cannot be obtained, is by faith, which is the only means which God has appointed for this purpose. What says our Church upon this 1 19 i subject'} In " the '2ih\ II mily ol' tlip Pnssion" we thus rend " Ahnipfhty God commonly worketh by means, ami in this thing he hnlh oninincd a certain wean whereby we mny tnke fruit und prolit (o our soul's henlth. What mean is thati Forsooth it is faith. Apaiii, mark these words, ' That whoso- ever believeth in him.' Here is the mean wliereby we must ajjply the Iruits of Christ's death unto our deadly wound, — here is the mean whereby we. must obtain eternal life, namely, faith." Af,'ain, "By this, then, you may well perceive that