■<- .. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) I 1.0 1.1 tami. 12.5 ■u lU m u u& L*. ■';.' ■ .\<'-, ■ V^l^m - ^^ ;,.:,'' '-, ..': < 5" » '^ Sciences Ojrporalion ^ ¥i^ » WIST MAM STHiT Wim. M.Y. I49W t711)t7r4903 4^ v^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Inatituta for Historical IMicroraproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas ^ ©1984 Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at Wbliooraphiquaa Tha inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat origlnai copy avaiiabia for fiiming. Faaturaa of tliia copy which may ba bibliographicaliy uniqua, which may aitar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignlfieantiy changa tha uaual mathod of fiiming, ara ehaelcad balow. 0Colourad covara/ Couvartura dm couiaur □ Covara damagad/ Couvartura andommagia D n D D D n Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou pailicuiia r'n Covar titia miaaing/ titra da couvartura manqua I I Coiourad mapa/ Cartas gtegraphiquas an couiaur Coiourad init (i.a. othar tlian biua or blacit)/ Encra da couiaur (i.a. autra qua biaua ou noira) □ Coiourad piataa and/or iiiuatrations/ ^^anchaa •'t/ou illuatrationa rni couiaur Bound with otttar matarial/ RaiiA avac d'autraa documanta Tight binding may cauaa ahadowa or diatortion along intarior margin/ La re liura aarrAa paut cauaar da i'ombra ou da la diatortion la long da la marga irjtiriaura Blank laavaa addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Wlianavar poaaibia. thaaa hava baan omittad from filming/ 19 aa paut qua cartiinaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutiaa iora d'una raatauration apparaiaaant dana la taxts, mala, loraqua cala Atait poaaibia, caa pagaa n'ont paa At* fiimAaa. Additional commanta:/ Commantairaa auppltftmantairaa: L'lt atitut a microfilm* la mailltur axampiaira qu'il lui a AtA poaaibia da aa procurer. Laa dAtaila da eat axampiaira qui aont paut-Atra uniquas du point da vua Mbliographique, qui pauvant modifier una image raproduita, ou qui pauvant axigar une modification dana la mAthoda normale de f iimage aont indiqu6a ci-daaaoua. r'n Coiourad pages/ Pagaa da couiaur Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagAas □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurAea at/ou peliiculAas Pagaa diacoiourad, stained or foxed/ Pages dAcoiorAea, tachetAes ou piquAas Pages detached/ Pages dAtachAes Showthrough/ Tranaparanca I I Pages detached/ r~l Showthrough/ □ Quality of print varies/ Qualit* InAgaia de I'impreaaion □ Inchfdea aupplamentary material/ Comprand du matArial auppl4mantaire □ Only edition avaiiabia/ Saule Mition diaponibia D Pagaa wholly or partially obac^irad by arrata siipa, tiaauaa, ate, hava baan rafilmed to enaura the baat poaaibia imaga/ l.aa pagaa totalamant ou partiallament obacurciaa par un fauiilat d'arrata. una peiMre. etc., ont AtA fiimAea A nouvaau da fa^on A obtanir la maiHaura imaga poaaibia. 1 s 1 V : b rl n n Thia itam ia filmed at tha raduction ratio cha (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (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, aa many frames as required. The following diagrama illustrate the method: Lea images suivantes ont At6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet* de l'exempiaire film«, at en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmaga. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim4e sent film«s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernMre page qiii comporte una empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiimte en conimenpant par la premlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte una telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, salon le caa: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le symboie ▼ signifie "FIN". Les cartea. planches, tabiaaux, etc., peuvent Atre film«s k dea taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque Ut document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un sou! ciichA, 11 est filmA A partir de Tangle aupArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 m iyw»ww»» •>- :-'■-*-»■ THE JUDGMENTS or THE CANADIAN BISHOPS, ON THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THEM BT THE CORPORATION OF TRINITY COLLEGE, IN BXLATIOM TO THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF THE COLLEGE. / TORONTO : BOWSELL & ELLIS, FRINTERd, KING STREET. 1863. ■>t W-f^-iir -: i? ■MVIIippiPMiVi '^^^ •. « ""^•i. •«» I i THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CANADIAN BISHOPS, ON THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THEM BY THE CORPORATION OF TRINITY COLLECE, • IN BELATION TO THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF THE COLLEGE. TortONTO : ROWSELL & ELLIS, rillNTKR.S KlN(i STREET, 18G3. Extract from the minutes of the Corporation of Trinity College, At a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity College, held on Tuesday, 7th October, 1862— {Preaent : The Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Toronto. The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Huron. The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Ontario. The Hon. Sir J. B. Robinson, Bart., Chancellor. The Rev. the Provost. The Rev. the Vice-Provost. The Ven. the Archdeacon of Toronto. The Rev. H. J. Grasett. Dr. McMurray. " Fuller. " Caulfeild. " Sandys. " Boon^er. " Lauder. The Ven. the Archdeacon of London. The Rev. S. Givins. J. G. Geddes. J. W. Marsh. The Hon. J. H. Cameron. " G. W. Allan. Professor Hind. " Bovell. L. MofFatt, Esq. J. M. Strachan, Esq. S. B. Harman, Esq.) It was Resolved — " That with the view of endeavouring to set the public mind at rest on the subject of the Theolo- gical teaching of Trinity College, the letter of the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Huron, and the answer of the Provost of tlio College thereto, as reported to this Oorpora- u a u u (( (( (( (( tion by tlio Special Committee, with such other letters and documents relating to the controversy as have been put forth by the Bishop of Huron and the Provost, be referred to the Metropolitan Bishop of Montreal and tlie other Canadian Bishops, together with the other Bishops of the Church in J?ritish Korth America, if desired by a majority of the Ciinadian Bishops, with the request that they will carefully examine the same, and declare if they find in any, and if in any, in what particulars the doctrines inculcated therein by the Provost of the College, are unsound or unscriptural, con- trary to the teaching of the Church of England, or danger- ous in tlieir tendency, or leading to the Church of Rome." A true extract from the minutes. CHARLES MAGRATH, Burtar and Secretary. JUDGMENTS OF THE CANADIAN BISHOPS. (I.) TlIK JUDOMKNT OF THE METROPOLITAN. QuKiiKC, 22nd June, 18G3. My Lord Brsiiop, I have looked carefully tlirougli the documents your Lord- ship forwiirdcd to ino uliilst I was in England, together with the resolution of the Corporation respecting the controver.sy on the the subject of Trinity College. I was asked t ) ex;r..iiiio them, and declare whether I con- sidered the doctrines int Icated therein by the Provost "were unsound or iniseri[itiual. contrary to the teaching of the Church of England. ,or dangerous in their tendency, or lead- ing to the Church of Kcnie.'' Under the circumstances of the reference, and having my- self no jurisdiction or authority whatever in the corporation, I can onlyher*! givee.vpression tomy own indiviy, to the jiublic in j^eneral, tlie impression, tbat, if false doctrine has not been tau^'ht in the College, yet at least undue jjroniincncc and exa;r;^erated 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 it, which have given this prominence and importance to the matters in question. I do net say this by way of complaint, but simply in self-defence, and for the purpose of abating a not unreasonable prejudice. The objections are, for th'j most part, ])ascd on a few short and scattered clauses, not one of which I nm prepared to retract, but which I should be very sorry to have made the principal, or even prominent, topics of my teaching." The means, again, with whieh I arn furnished for discover- ing what is the I'lovost's teaching respecting any of the points in rpicstion, are to some extent insufficient and unsatis- factory. They consist of objections made by the Bishop of Ilin-on, and of the re[)ly of the Provost, which latter, it is evident, must take the foi'm of explanation, or exception, or vindication, rather than 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, thci'c is mani<'?stly every endeavour and desire to be open, clear, and straight-forward. But when theological questions arc treated in the shape of objec- tions 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 m the Provost's teaching, to which strong objection has been taken, have reference to matters about which the Church is i »» 4 ontirdj silent. Tlioy arc in fact pi '.vatc opinions, respect- ing wliicli (linV'i'oiices may exist, without any blame attaching to any one. Thoy certainly must never be made "the prin- cipal or j)rominent tojiies " (jf the professor's teaching, if they are entertained, it shoidd be Avith moderation, and when mentioned, treated with discretion. Thus tlie 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-ward direction," l)eeause he taught "the probable Intercession of Saints." These both are undoubtedly mere private opinions. But to shew that he Avas on his guard against any such evil consefiuences, as those witli which he is charged, he appeals, respecting the Virgin Mary, " most confidently to the theo- logical 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 other |)lace in the economy of human redemption, than that of a humble, yet most honoured 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 Intercession of Saints, the Provost says, he "must speak of it ■ a j^rob- alile opinioH: that when speaking of the error of .'e Invo- cation of Sairits, ho must necessarily refer to the Intercession of the departed on our behalf." lie thinks that this is necessary, 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 prac- tice (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 Sup- per." This doctrine, no doubt, has been held and taught by some great divines, as is well known to every theologian. When held modestly, and spoken of with that reverential carefulness of thought and expression, which an attempt to ■ I explain so great a mystery demands, it deserves to be regarded with respect- Bu'; it sliould bo remembered that it is a doctrine, which belongs not to theology in the strict scnpo of tlic word, but to theological philosophy, if we may so term it ; and ought never to be pressed with positivenoss, nor set up as a standard of orthodoxy. As to what our Church does teach on this subject, there ought to bo no doubt. She affirms that the union betwixt Christ and his Church, is so real, so intimate, so perfect, that 'we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us, wo 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 perfect man. But wliether that union is, in any special way, with our Lord's glorified humanity, and not His divinity, she has never taken upon herself to determine. Here, as in so many other instances, she has been satisfied with declar- ing the fact itself, so marvellous, 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. In like manner nothing can be more unfaltering and clear, than the testimony of the Cliurch of England, as to the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, being the appointed visible means for maintaining tins 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 n-ontal training, or some peculiar aptitude for its right apprehen- sion, even 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 disc'' Uue. Whether we may agree with the Provost or not in any such opinions, respect- ing which the Church is silent, yet I do not feel that we have any right to condemn, them, tliougli I should in the very strongest manner disapprove, if they, or others of a oimilar class, were made to assume " prominence or importance '' in 'i I 'i I )0( I of ;this But The cntal hen- )jcct have may lect- liave very iriilar B"in f. % a professor's teaching ; of which, however, I have no evidence before me, and the Provost himself expresslj^ denies that they have ever been permitted to assume any such character. There is one passage, under the head of " Priestly Abso- lution," respecting which I should have wished for further explanation. The Provost speaks of " the pardon accorded in private confession to God, as contingent and provisional, though sufficient for our immediate necessity ; while its more full and formal conveyance is reserved to follow in that con- fession, which is made, when we assemble and meet together as members of a divinely ".nstituted organization to receive the gifts, and to avail ourselves of the ministries, which per- tain to the body of Christ." Now it is no doubt to be pre- sumed, in the case of all truly penitent sinners, who may have confessed t'leir sins unto God in private, whatever ful- ness of mercy may then have been bestowed upon them, that they will, at the earliest opportunity, seek also to make con- fession to God in the public sorviccs 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 acknow- ledgment, had been in some measure themselves imperfect, and therefore wanting in their complete results to them. But certainly the CImrcli has never attempted to explain exactly the nature of the blessing, which is anr.excd to public con- fession, or nicely to adjust its relation to that pardon, which God may bo pleased at the time to bestow upon all true penitent sinners, wliene\^er, 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 1 believe there is no suspicion that any owe 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 8 Church of Rome ; and as far as I can judge of the general tenor of his teaching, from the text and spirit of the docu- ments before me, whatever difference of opinion I may enter- tain on some points, respecting which a liberty is allowable to all, I should not believe it to be such as would be likely to lead to any siich result. Believe me, My Lord Bishop, Yours very faithfully, and sincerely, F. MONTREAL. The Lord Bishop of Toronto, President of Trinity College, Toronto. (II.) The Judgment of the Bishop of Tokonto. Toronto, lat Jul)/, 1808. My Loud Bishop, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of vour Lord:«hip'8 judgment on the case submitted to you by tlic Corporation of Trinity College, and in so doing, I would express my grateful sense of the careful consideration which you have given to it, and my satisfaction on finding that your Lord- ship's views arc 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 anjainst the Provost's teiiching in roforenco to matters about which the church is entirely silent, and which are private opinions, repectiiig wliicli differences may exist without blame attaching to any ; though they certainly mu^t never be made the principal or prominent topics of the Professor's teaching," I may be permitted to state that I am aware that no undue prominence or importance has f ■s •f i 9 # been given to those matters of opinion by tlio Trovost, and that on the numberless points in the interpretation of Holy Scripture on which the church furnishes us witli no parti- cular and explicit instruction, ho lias made it a rule to com- ply with her general requirement " to teach nothing but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the old or new Testa- ment, and that which the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have gathered from that doctrine." I am at a loss to conceive in what other way than this a cautious and reve- rent spirit is to be discovered by one whose duty it is to enter on the wide field of examining and elucidating the meaning of Holy Scripture ; more especially if he obey" the rule given above, in its spirit as well as its letter, by dili- gently 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 aftor a full consideration of the subject, abstained fi-oin making any reference to four out of the eight divisions under whicli the Bishop of Huron's objections are classed, that you cake no exception to the Provost's replies on these divisions, and as I am equally persuaded of the Provost's soundness and integrity in interpreting 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 consideration Avhich you liave 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. Fulford, D.l)., Lord Bishop of Montreal, and Metropolitan. 10 ■l' i I (III.) Bishop of Huron's Decision on Provost's Reply. My Lord Bishop, Having read the reply of Provost AVhitaker to the objections which I brought to the theological teaching of Trinity College, I feel constrained to express my opinion that the Provost has not succeeded in proving to my satis- faction that the theological teaching of the College is not dangerous to the young men educated in that institution. I 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 of Toronto. It is not now my purpose to go over the same ground which I travelled 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 intro- duces 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 catec lism, but that the Provost has thus introduced it, I will only add with respect 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 sup- plied 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 Avas all taken down by way of notes in yodr lecture-room and might by the slightest inaccuracy, in those very points, lead to very erro- neous conclusions." I have now before me Mr. Middleton's % i 'Ik 11 :J answers to the questions whicli I proposed to him, and the letter which accompanied his catechism, and there is no such caution in either of them^ on the contrary I find 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 lectures, to Mr. Jones, Badgely and myself, for the first time they were ever lent, and did sounder a sort of protest; we borrowed them to cor- rect the 50 or GO questions at the end, upon which the Pro- vost had not questioned us for want of time at the end of the year ; we never needed them at any other time, as we united in taking down the notes, taking every third sentence when we could not each get it all: Avhen 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, 1800, 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 wish 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. Middle- ton's letters, as the Provost says, " furnish ample means of testing the correctness of the statements" which I made con- cerning the catechism. With reference to the undue exalta- tion 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 dispensa- tion a position typical of that of Mary under the new." I shall make no further remark on this first " probable opinion," taught and maintained by the Piovost. 12 ill i1 The second opinion is "The probable intercession of de- parted saints for us." The Provost claims, that scripture and reason are on his side in upholding this article of his teaching. lie sn js of this opinion in page 2G, *' a persuasion which all reasoning from analogy confirms, and which the Word of God, though it docs not expressly sanction, goes very far to establish" — and in page 28, "But I have said that Holy Scripture goes far to make this opinion in the highest ih>i]ree probable." And yet Pearson, one of the Provost's chosen autiiorities, states, " that it is not revealed unto us in Scripture, nor can bo concluded by necessary deduction from any principle of Christianity;" and Arch- bishop Tillotson, as (juoted by the Provost in page 78, speak- ing 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 argument 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 establii-h" this doctrine, and render it in the hujhcst degree probable, can stand in the face of the Provost's own quota- tions, 1 leave to the Corporation to decide. But the Pro- vost has appealed to the Word of God, and has quoted the paral'le, or, as he calls it, "the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus," as pointing to the conclusion that the saints in heaven pray for us. It may be aske', 15 sense in pardons Ills truth rho have d. But ation on that my the fact tences of olution." nowhere There is deacon stabished i and the concern- Clergy," the Book jn is pro- nlthough unced by cc, seems lunce the ision just does not Priest's y after it itri," &c. from the 1 reading ore stable mode in Inner who oned and I 4 i t i accepted by God. his sins and iniquities are blotted out for ever." In page 33, he thus states his own view : " I believe that God forgives the sins of the ^nitent when he truly confesses them, and pleads for ^rgivfjnesa in the name of Chiist, under any eircuinstanc'^." This confession of faith which substantiiilly agrees \ 1th mine, to which the Provost objects, 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, ho thus writes, " Can we rightly conceive of the pardon accorded on private confession to God, as being other than contingent and provisional, though sufficient for our immediate neces- sity ?" Here Ave are taught that after the sinner has made full confession of his sins to God with deepest contrition of soul and in the exercise of a living faith in Christ, he is still to regard his pardon as contingent and conditional until he has obtained Absolution from the Priest. Upon Avhat is his pardon conliiigent ? Plainly upon Priestly Absolution. It is not to be regarded as perfect without this. I have been furnished with the following statement of the doctrine of the Church of Rome on the subject of private and public confession by a gentleman for many years a Priest of that Church, now a Clergyman of the Church of England. " God grants Absolution to private confession and contri- tion only conditionally. The pardon granted to private confession to God is only conthifjent and provisional^ pro- viding only for the ijnmediate necessity, while its full and authoritative conveyance is still withheld and reserved to follow on Sacramental confession. This Sacramental con- fession may be made in many ways, either kneeling or stand- ing, 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 cor- 16 ! responds so nearly with that taught by tlie 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 of the day, but of our past lives, as incompatible with the view which I have set forth. But docs 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? Tlie believer is rightly and piously taught in our services to confess continually his sins before God, and to bewail them with deep humility of soul, and this he is to do, '' most chiefly" when he 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 repen- tance to him. The Provost must allow that the sinner, after he has had the public absolution of the Priest, upon which he teaches the pardon of the believer in Christ to be con- tingent is yet called upon to confess again and 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 conveyed 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 nage 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 ?" 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 i ■I ft I i f St that I ching as IS to the F sin the to make ns of tho tho view t sec that 3 view of icr in the 1 piously ns before soul, and with the ay at tho id washed nd repen- incr, after pon which ,0 be con- again the ed. This igainst his the public BC pardon exercises nercy seat Bishop of Hi Priestly me rests is rer I know lie divines y power of 17 Absolution, and not as tlio Provost says, Absolution on confession. Tli(»y ri'ason thus, Clirist has givon power to the Priest to absolve from sin, tlioroforo the siimor must confess to him. The essence of the llomish doctrine con- sists in the absolving power of the Priest. C(Hifesslon is a matter of direct logical deduction. It matters not whether this confession be auricular, [jiivate or [)uldic, tliat is a ques- tion of disciplijie which the Cliureh ni;iy modiiy according to cii'cumstances. All, therefore, wliieh the Provost has said u[)on auiicular confession, aiitl his inilignant rcqiudia- tion of this practice is without point, as in no wise interfer- injj with tho doctrine of Priestly Absolution. While the Provost atates that he docs not hohl himself responsible for all the expressions which occur in the quotations from his authorities, still he has undertaken to defend the most ol)jeeti(jnal)lc [);issiiges wiiich occur in their writings : " Heaven waits and expect.- the Priest's sentence here on earth.' And "the Lord Toliows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds and loos<'s here on earth, the liord confirms in heaven." "The Apostles an' In page 40, the Provost states, " Melancthon calls justifi- cation 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 justi- fication by faith." The terms are indeed correlative, but they arc 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 tl o unmerited mercy and gratuitous favour of God, and justification, with- out 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 subject ? In *' the 2nd Homily of the Passion" we thus read, " Almighty God commonly worketh by means, and in this thing ho hath ordained a certain mean Avhercby wo may take fruit and profit to our souls' health. V.Hiat meand is that ? Forsooth it is faith. Again, mark these words, ' That whosoever believeth in him.* Hero is the mean whereby wo must apply the fruits of Christ's death unto our deadly wound, — here is the mean Avhercby we must obtain eternal life, namely, faith." Again, " By this, then, you may well perceive that the only mean and instrument of salvation required on our parts is faith." Again, *' Thus have we heard in few words, the mean whereby we must apply the fruits and merits of Christ's deatii unto us, so that it may work the salvation of our souls, namely, a sure, perfect, steadfast, and grounded faith." And again, " Let us then use the mean which God hath appointed in his word, to wit., the mean of faith, which is the only instrument of sal- vation now left to us." /It is for the Corporation to decide whether the Provost had succeeded in his lengthy argument in proving that he had not departml in his teaching from the doctrine of justification by f;iitli as the only mean and instrument appointed by God for the salvation of men, as that doctrine is laid down in the articles and homilies of our ii I. ! %% t I I 19 ills justifi- by grace. ^ exclude will justi- lative, but jr relation following unuierited ion, with- , wbich is t purpose. ' the 2ntl ;hty God ho hath fruit and Forsooth ivhosocver wo must wourid, — rnal life, may well salvation have we apply the it it may , perfect, it us then 1, to wit., t of sal- to decide irgumcnt ling from icaii and f men, as es of our i I Church. In page 4!>, the Provost says, " All indeed who know any thing of tho History of the Reformation know that the groat struggle respecting justification related to its meritorious cause, (fee." Hooker know something about tho Koformation, and in his sermon on justification he thus describes the dilTorcnces botwocn tiio Church of Home and the Church of Eriglaud on the subject of justification, " Wherein, then, do wo disngroo ? We disagree about tho nature of tho vory ossonco of tho medicine whereby Christ cur:)d our disoaso — about tiio manner of applying it — about tlic number and poiver of the means wliich God requiieth in us fur tho ofioctual applying thereof to our soul's comfort." The struggle at the Ueformation concern- ing justification was just as koon concerning the mean and instrument of justification as about its meritorious cause. The same strugglo is going on at tho present day. Frcmwiiat tho Provost s,iy>i, in page o4, he appears quite to misunderstand tho pos-tion in wnicli I stand in reference to hira and to ttio Cor|)oration. He says, " It is too much to require that 1 should, on pain of being accounted a dangerous and heretical teacher, relinquish their authority as interpreters of scripture for that of the Bishop of Huron. For this it is ^>hich in that case his Lordship is re- quiring me to do." In this the Provost labours under a mistake. I never required him to give np any authority, or to adopt any new views, or even to modify those which he has avowed. As a member of the Corjjoration of Trinity College, when required to do so, I stated my objections to his teaching, and I appealed to the Corporation to decide whether thej approved of such teaching. The challenge then which the Provost gives in the above page I must beg to decline, as I do not wish to change places with him, and to stand on my defence before the Corporation with him as my oppo- nent. I r I ii i 20 The question of the participation of the glorified hu- manity of our Lord in the eucharist, and the direct appli.; cation of the 6th of John to the I'ord's Supper, I shall not a<»ain enter upon. I shall leave these with the remarks which I made on them in my objections to the decision of he Corporation. Concerning good things lost at the Reformation, the Provost says tiiat in the 1st Book of Edward 6th, there was a rubric commanding tlic Priest *■' to reserve at the open com- munion so much of the body and blood as shall serve the sick person." This was the good and pious usage in the days of Justin Martyr, which is regretted by the Provost. 0;ir Reformers found that superstition and idolatry were in- troduced by this usage, and in little more than ten years the article was agrcMnl upon which condemned and forbid, not the vulgar superstitions of the Devonshire rebels, but the usage enjoined by the rubric of the 1st Prayer-Book of King Edward. It would be more safe at the present day not to regret or tt'ach others to regret a usage which our Ref(U-mers so soon found necessary to expunge from our Prayer-Book, and to frame an article ag-iinst it. In conclusion I would say, when I find young men of the present day ready to avow that they would rather be united to the Churcii of Rome than to any protestant body separated '"'•om the Church of England, I must regard the teaching which has induced this state of mind as most dangerous. I am old-f.isliioned enou<;h to rcixard with holy horror thdso doctrines and practices which our Church characterises as " blasplicinous fables and dan- gerous deceits," and as "idolatry to be abhorred of all christian men," and I find that this horror does not exist in the minds of the alumni of 'i'l-inity College. It may be said triumphantly that none of the students of Trinitv College have yet forsaken the Church of England for that of Rome, but we know that many years are required to 21 effect such a clmngc in the mind and feelings of a man as will constrain him to burst through all the ties of kindred and companionship which habit and education have bound around him, and to adopt a system as entirely opposed to that in which he has been educated as day is to night. We know that several of those who have gone over from the Church of England to that of Rome were for eight or ten years contemplating the change before thoy took the final step. In "Cautions for the Times," we find the Arch- bishop of Dublin thus speaking of those men, " It is no wonder then that many of those who had thus been brought on to the very brink of Romanism, siiould, when they became aware of their real position, pass on. But much as their case is to be lamented, and great as is the damage which thoy liavo done to the Church, they are not the members of the party that ;u-e most to bo feared: they have left us and become avowed Romanists, and by that very act set us on our guard against them. Much more formidable arc the leaders of tlie party who still remain in outward communion with us. They come to us in sheep's clothing, professing to be devoted members of our Church, and therefore they find, too often, ready listeners. They may be compared to a recruiting de{)ot for the Church of Rome, kept up iunong ourselves, and sooner or later the persons who fall under their iiifiucnce, very generally become -pen converts to Romanism, and their efforts are the more insidious, because they, for the most part, begin by loudly declaring that they teach nothing but the recognised doctrines of the Established Chmch— that thoy are inculcating Church principles, and that all who are opposed to them arc little better tlum schismatics." I trust that the decision at which the Corporation may arrive will boTuch iis will promote the interests of vital religion and sound Protestant truth in this Institution. BENJ. HURON. 22 (IV.) The Judgment of the Bishop of Ontario. Hawkesbury, July Wi, 18G3. My Lord Bishop, I have carefully examined the documents necessary to form an opinion regarding the controversy about the teach- ing of the Provost of Trinity College. I am aware that some of the items of teaching as given in those documents are simply matters of private opinion regarding which differences may exist in the minds of differ- ent members of the Church without blame attaching to any one ; but as regards the dogmatic teaching of the Provost on the doctrines of the Church, I have to declare my belief that it is not unsound nor unscriptural, it is not contrary to the teaching of the United Church of England and Ireland, dangerous in its tendency, or leading to the Church of Rome. I have the honour to remain your Lordship's faithful servant, J. T. ONTARIO. Hon. and Right Rev. The Lord Bishop of Toronto, President of Trinity College. (V.) The Judgment of tiJe Bishop of Quebec. Quebec, August 25, 1863. My Lord Bishop, In rendering an answer to the question whether the teaching of the Provost of Trinity, as exhibited in the two pamphlets 28 placed in my hands, be " unsound, or unscriptural, contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England, or dangerous in their tendency, or leading to the Church of Rome," I beg to state, that I am unable to deal with the two last queries. The documents do not furnish the requisite data. To judge of the " tendency" or the " leading" of his teaching, we must view it as a whole. Wo cannot tell from extracts, however fairly selected, what may have been the promii.once assigned to the impugned statements, nor how these may have been guarded and modificit in the unextracted parts of the Provost's lectures, or by,oral instruction. And if we could form an opinion on these matters, it would carry little weight in the face of a better appeal. The results arc before you. The tendency, or the leading of the Provost's teaching, not whither, I may fancy, or you may suppose, but whither it has tended — whither it has led. If his pupils have, in any numbers, gone over to the Church of Rome, there will be a strong presumption that his teaching leads that way, and therefore has a dangerous tendency. If he has taught for all these years, and his hearers, the while, have not gone over to the Church of Rome, it would argue, if not disloyalty to truth, at any rate incapacity to appreciate fact, to affirm that his teaching leads thither. I am unwilling to convert what is really a question of fact into matter of opinion. In regard to the other elements of the question submitted, I have to say, tiiat, having carefully read the Bishop of Huron's charges, and the Provost's reply, I do not find the teaching complained of to be "unsound or unscriptural, or contrary to the tcaoiiiiig of the Cliurch of England." Tlie Provost, so far as I can see, teaches nothing for the doctrine of the Church wliich the Church does not herself teach ; he holds no opinion, so far as I can learn, which the Church does not permit him to hold. Some of his opinions I do not share ; but this I will say. 24 that a Theological Professor could not discharge the duties of his office without adverting to the topics in relation to which the Provost's teaching is complained of; and, that those opinions which he is permitted to hold, he is in no way bound to conceal. I have the honour to be, my Lord Bishop, Yours faithfully, J. W. QUEBEC. The Right Rev. the President of the Corporation of Trinity College, Toronto. y IlowseU & Klliu, Printers, Kiug Street, Toronto. Extract from the minutes of the Corporation of Trinity College. At a meeting of the corporation of Trinity College, held on Tuesday, the 29th September, 1863— {Present : The Hon and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Toronto. The Right Rev. the Lord Rishop of Huron. The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Ontario. The Rev. the Provost of Trinity College. The Rev. Professor Ambery. Professor Bovell. The Hon. MrwVice-Chancellor Spraggc. Jas. M. Strachan, Esq. S. B. Harman, Esq. Lewis Moffatt, Esq. The Rev. T. B. Fuller, D.D., D.C.L. The Rev. H. J. Grasett. The Ven. the Archdeacon of Toronto. « " Ontario. " " London. The Rev. St. George Caulfeild, L.L.D. F. W. Sandvs, D.D. M. Boomer, L.D.D. " J. W. Marsh. A. J. Henderson, Esq., D.C.L. The Rev. S. Givins. J. G. Geddes.) (( (( (( The following resolution was adopted : Moved by the Ven. the Archdeacon of Toronto, seconded by J. A. Hendeuson, Esq., Resolved — " That this corporation, after fully considering the charges preferred by the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Huron against the theological teaching of the Provost of Trinity College, and the opinions of the Canadian Bishops on these charges and the Provost's replies, is of opinion that that teaching is not unsound, unscriptural, con- trary to the doctrines of the Church of England, dangerous in its tendency, nor leading to the Church of Rome." Truly extracted from the minutes. CHARLES MAGRATH, Bursar and Secretary, ■f..' k ^t,;. / 1 v' ,*:'-• 1x i ]i "H,., s- Y H ^T ,»-^- '"rj ***Si,