[«;•••■■ 
 
 ■.¥.;,. 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 ■a 128 
 
 I.I 
 
 it 
 
 m 
 
 12.2 
 
 12.0 
 
 I 
 
 PnotrifTPQT^nir' 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 V 
 
 m 
 
 // 
 
 {/ 
 
 ^A 
 
 
 ^/h 
 
 %o 
 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1 1-6 
 
 
 ^ ^« _ 
 
 
 ► 
 
 s 
 
 ■■b^ 
 
 iV 
 
 \ 
 
 v> 
 
 ^v: 
 
 
 •<^/' 
 
 
 ;\ 
 
 
 ^V 
 
 23 WEST MAIN :>TRE<T 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHIVI/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historicai IVIicrorepro>Juct!on8 / Institut Canadian de microreproductiont historiqutt 
 
 1 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notat tachnicguas at bibliographiquaa 
 
 The Institute ha« attempted to obtain the b««t 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of this 
 copy which may ba bibliograpnically uniqua, 
 which may alter any of tha imigaa in tha 
 reproduction, or which may significantly changa 
 the usual method of filming, are chackad balow. 
 
 □ Coloured covara/ 
 Couvertura da coulaur 
 
 a 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couvertura endommagaa 
 
 Covers restored and/or iaminatad/ 
 
 I 1 Couverture reatauraa at/ou pallicui4« 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre dp couvertura manqua 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 Coloured mapa/ 
 
 Cartes g^ugraphiquea an eoulqur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blua or blackl/ 
 Encre da coulaur (i.a. autre qu« biaua ou noi 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illuctrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations 9n coulaur 
 
 r~y^ Bound with other material/ 
 t I Reli^ avec d'autres documents 
 
 □ Tight binding may causa shadows or diatortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 Lareliure serree peut causer da I'ombra ou d« la 
 distorsion la long de la marga interiaurv 
 
 n 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, thaaa 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 It se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutiea 
 lors d'une restauration apparaisaent dana la taxta. 
 mais, lorsque cela itaii possibia. cos pages n'ont 
 pas eti film^es. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilr.e la meillaur examplatra 
 qu'il lui a ete possible de sa procurer. Les de'^aiis 
 de cat exemplaire qui ront peut-etre uniques du 
 point de vus bibliographtque. qui pcuvont modifier 
 una image reproduite. ou qui peuvent aiigar una 
 modification dans la mStt>ods normals de filmags 
 'iont indiques ci-dsssous. 
 
 □ Coloursd psgss/ 
 Pages ds coulsur 
 
 □ Psgss dsmsgsd/ 
 Psgss sndommag*ss 
 
 □ Pagss rsstored and/or l^minatsd/ 
 Psgss rsstauress st/ou psiliculiss 
 
 r~n/^sgos discoloured, stitinsd or foxsd/ 
 ULi Psgss dicoiorSss. tschst^ss ou piqu*ss 
 
 □ Pagss detsehsd/ 
 Pigss dstschses 
 
 r~V^howthrough/ 
 LlJ Transpsrsncs 
 
 □ Quslitv of print variss/ 
 Quslits inigala da I'lmprsssion 
 
 □ Includss aupplementsry matsrisl/ 
 Comprsnd du matsrisl supplsmantaira 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 Only sdition avstSabIa/ 
 Ssula Edition disponibia 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refiimsd to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellemsnt 
 Obscurcies par un feuillet .1'errata, una psiure, 
 etc.. cnt ^te filrr^es A nouveau de fi^on i 
 obtenir la msillsurs imsgs possibis. 
 
 
 ""T' Additional cor;»ment3:/ 
 
 Commentaires supplementairss: 
 
 Various paglngs. SoT^e of the text noutited oti blank leaves. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filme au iaux =e reduction indique ci-dessous. 
 
 lOX 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26 X 
 
 30X 
 
 /MM r I I ! 
 
 12X 
 
 -6X 
 
 2QX 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
Tht copy fUmad h«r« hat b««n r«produc«d thanks 
 to tha genaroslicy of: 
 
 Matropolitan Toronto Library 
 CtnadMn History Dtpartmcnt 
 
 L'axamplaire filmi fut reproduit grdce it la 
 g6n4roaiti da: 
 
 Mttropolitan Toronto Library 
 Canadiin History Department 
 
 ler 
 > 
 
 Tha Imagaa appaaring hara ara tha bact quality 
 posaibia coi>aidaring tha condition and lagibility 
 of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha 
 filming contract apacificationa. 
 
 Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara filmad 
 beginning with tha front covar and anding on 
 tha iKat paga with a printad or illuatratad inr»praa- 
 aion, or tha back covar whan appropriata. All 
 othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha 
 firat paga with a printad or illuatratad ir<<pra8> 
 alon, and arsding on tha laat paga with a printad 
 or illuatratad impraaaion. 
 
 Laa Imagas suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plua grand soin, compte tenu de la condit'on et 
 da la natteti da rexemplbire film6. At en 
 conformity avac Ins conditions du contrat da 
 filmaga. 
 
 Laa axamplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimie sont filmis en commengant 
 par la premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derniire paga qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustretion, soit par le second 
 plat, aelon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 onginoux sont filml&s en commongant par la 
 pramiAre page qui co'iiporte une empreinte 
 d'impreaaion ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 •mprainta. 
 
 Tha latt recorded frame on each microfkha 
 shall contain tha aymbol — ^Imaaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the aymbol V (meaning "END'J. 
 whichever appliaa. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratioa. Those too large to b« 
 entirely included in one exposure ere filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many framea aa 
 required. Tha following diagrams illustrate th« 
 method: 
 
 Un daa symboles suivants Apparattra sur ta 
 darni^ra image de chaque microfiche, selon le 
 caai le symbote ^^ signifie 'A SUIVRE". le 
 symbole V sighifie "FIN". 
 
 Lea cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmia i des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 i partir 
 de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nicessaire. Les diagrsmmes suivants 
 illustrent la mithode. 
 
 ire, 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
A 
 
 r I 
 
 lip 
 
 ¥ 
 
 li- 
 i 
 
 r *^ 
 
 :.fr 
 
 HP 
 
 |in If 
 
 I 
 
 ^:«. 
 
 (iPli 
 
 T -■ ^ 
 
 1 i 
 
 S(u.i'^' )!'.' 
 
 
 ■■.;•'«'■''- 
 
 \ INDUSTRY 
 
 ^ 
 
 iHTEUIOUICC 
 
 Toronto Public Library. 
 
 Reference Department. 
 
 THIS BOpK MUST NOT BETAKEN OUT OF THE ROOM. 
 
 
 Th 
 
 THE 
 
 It is w 
 
 the follow 
 
 The Tl 
 
 ; (C. W.) c 
 
 1 Dr. Towi 
 
 'That, 
 
 ' jihouM un 
 
 I it a high '. 
 
 encf», this 
 
 inciiiia as 
 
 I hearty co- 
 
 loruiito ; 
 
 the libera 
 
 I years ?n si 
 
 : a royal cli 
 
 I The res 
 
 I lliii Loi 
 
 ; without e: 
 
 in some ( 
 
 } College, ai 
 
 I powiT ves 
 
 teachiniis i 
 
 - statute \\w 
 
 ' and if he 
 
 -end him t 
 
 vt'jited in t 
 
 not give it 
 
 His Loi 
 
 votinw jjga 
 
 Tlie foil 
 of July 15 
 
 The Cor 
 public prin 
 of Huron, I 
 the Lord ] 
 they have 
 Synod that 
 
The Bishop of Muron and Trinity College, Toronto. 347 
 
 THE BISHOP OF HURON AND TRINITY COLLEGE 
 
 TORONTO. * 
 
 It is with great and real pain that we feel bound to place on record 
 the following report and documents. 
 
 (C. W.) on Tuesday, June 12. On Wednesday, the 13th, "the Kev, 
 Dr. lownley bro.ight forwaid the following resolution :— 
 
 cv. 1 1 1 ^' T'^^ }^ '' fV'^y *^ ^^ ^*^'""^'*^ ♦^^^ **'« Canadian Church 
 .should unite HI the upholding of one University, thereby insuring for 
 
 nl i? • T''''y^ character and extensive religious and Church influ- 
 
 tnte, this Synod respectfully requests the Lord Bishop to adopt such 
 
 neans as m his wisdom he may see good as shall tend to secure the 
 
 heiirty co-openition oi all Churclnnen in support of Trinity Colle-e, 
 
 lorunto; which through the energy of the Bishop of To/onto, and 
 
 the hheruhty of Churchnitn here arul at home, has been for some 
 
 rn^'arclmtcr' '*^"'*''*'''"» ^"'^ '''^^' *'*^ ^"S^^ I»onour of possessing 
 
 The resolution was seconded by Mr. Ryland. / 
 
 His Lord hip said he could not put the resolution to the meeting 
 
 without expies.mg an opinion thereon. He differed with Dr. Townle? 
 
 in some «t Ins remarks. He had studied the working of Trinity 
 
 College, and he considered that at the present time there was no 
 
 powjT vesleu in the hands of any of the Bishops to interfere in the 
 
 teachings ol this eoUege This was not the case formerly, but a late 
 
 sta ute hud altered it. He objected to the teachings of that university. 
 
 and 1 he had a son to educate, this would be the last place he would 
 
 .end hull to. In the present state of things, the supreme power was 
 
 vested m the Ch:incellor ; and so long as such was the case, he could 
 
 not give It his support. 
 
 His Lordship put the resolution, wliich was lost, a large majority 
 Voting agiunst it.^ ** •f^'^J 
 
 of jIiT ^15^1"° '' extracted from the Canadian Ecclesiastical Gazette, 
 
 " TRINITY COLLEGE. 
 
 The Corporation of Trinity College, Toronto, have ob^erv'ed, in the 
 Hibhc prints, a report of the proceedings of tiie Synod .if the Diocese 
 ot Huron, on ^\ ednesday, June 20th, containing a statejnent made by 
 the Lord Bishop ot Huron with reference to Trinity^ OoUe-e j and 
 they have ascertained from the testimony of persons -Dr^^cnt at the 
 ^yuod that tliis^-eport, so far as the language attributed "it^^he Bishop 
 
 ••• .. 
 •• • 
 
 ^ From the Echo and Protectant Episcopal Rem-dev. 
 
 iiid 
 
'^W 
 
 lii lib 
 
 '^1 IP 
 
 .J Ij 
 
 ^^iii 
 
 C 1 I, 
 
 348 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto. 
 
 is concerne(1, is substantially correct. That statement having been 
 made by a person occupying the prominent position of tliC bislmp ot 
 Huron, and in so public a maimer, ex catJmhd as it were, m an open 
 Synod of the Clerjry ut>d Laity of his Diocese, requires to be met, on 
 the part of tlie Corporation, by a statement no less pu'>hc. 
 
 I. His Lordship objects to the teaching of Innity College, and 
 declares that, it he hud a son to educate, it would be the last 
 place to which he would send him. , . , , i r 
 
 IL He states al<o that there is no power vested in the hands o any 
 of the Ilishops to iuternre in tlie teachings of the CoU.*ge. 
 * Thi< ' he says, * was not the case formerly, but a late statute 
 has alti^red it. In tl»e present state t.f things the supreme 
 power is vested in the Chancellor, and, so long as such is tlie 
 case, 1 cannot give it my support.' ^ 
 
 The Corporation address themselves, in the first instance, to the 
 
 latter statement : « », <• 
 
 The ' late statute,' to which the Bi.-hop of Huron refers, was 
 recommended by a Committee to the Corporation, and r<-x-eived by 
 them, as a pan of the report of the Committee, on the IJth ot 
 February, 1850. It wa:^, with the rest of the report, forthwith trans- 
 mitted to the Blsliop of Huron. He was invited, before the next 
 ineetin'' of the Corporation for the adoption of the report, to confer 
 privatety 'Uh the Bishop of Toronto, in order to remove any possible 
 misconc'i, ion. He did .o confer. On the 24th of FebruaiT, 18o9, 
 he accompanied the Bishop of Toronto to a meetn^g of the Cc^pora- 
 tion. The Bishop of Toronto informed the meeting that th". Bishop 
 of Huron and himself were agreed on the report of the Committee, 
 the Bi.^iop of Huron having only one or two unimportant amendments 
 
 to su guest. . 1 
 
 A These amendments were agreed to, and the report was unanimously 
 '*kopted, in the presence of the Bishop of Huron, his vdo being -sulh- 
 ient to have prevented the adoption of any portion of it. ^ 
 
 From that day to this the Bishop of Huron has never intimated to 
 the Corporation his dissatisfaction uith any statute enacted by the 
 adoption of that report. - 
 
 Iwiipears, therefore, that, withotit reference to the expediency ot 
 the existing regulations, the Bishop of Huron ha. no claim whatever 
 to allege str.tules which he deliberately sanctioned, and agamst wh-.cU 
 he has'' since entered no kind of protest, as a ground for discounte- 
 nancing tht^ College. . /.. , r *t 
 ° But, again, the Bishop misstates the case ns to the efiect of tliose 
 statntes. He says tliat ' there is no power vested in the han<]s of any 
 of the Bii:hops to interfere in the teachings of the College.' He 
 mi^ht have Siiid that the Bishops possess no separate or exdusu'e 
 power of so interfering. But they do possess, in eoinroon with other 
 Uieml"»vs of the Corporation, a right of interference; while their 
 sacred office v/ould ever give them, especially on questions relating to 
 religious trut-i or moral conduct, a p(.worftd influence with the rest of 
 ibe body. 
 
 0»C, 
 
to. 
 
 mgr 
 
 been 
 [Jishop of 
 I an open 
 B met, on 
 
 lege, and 
 3 the last 
 
 ids of any 
 ! CoU»*,'j;e. 
 ite statute 
 supreme 
 uch Is tlie 
 
 Be, to the 
 
 jftTs, was 
 ceivcd bv 
 a 12th of 
 .ith trans- 
 the next 
 to confer 
 ly pos."*ible 
 ary, 1850, 
 i Corpora- 
 th" Bisljop 
 >inii!iitte«^, 
 uendinents 
 
 lanimously 
 being isulfi- 
 
 »tjmat«;d to 
 ted by the 
 
 pediency of 
 
 n whatever 
 
 linst which 
 
 discounte- 
 
 3ct of those 
 
 an<ls of any 
 liege.' He 
 or exdusli'e 
 I with other 
 while their 
 3 relating to 
 ,1 the rest of 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto, 349 
 
 Tiie Bishop adds, 'In the present state of things, the supreme 
 power is vested in the Chancellor.' Thig is not the case. The only 
 statute on w hich the Bi.^hop'd assertion can he bused is the following : 
 ' No proposition for the removal of a provost or prole-iior may be 
 submiitt'd to the Corporation except through the Chancellor, and then 
 only on a written requisition, addressed to him by not le^ss than five 
 nu'tnbcrs of the Corporation.' This statute gives the Chancellor no 
 real power at all, but merely provides that an^mpf>rt!int act should be 
 done in a solenm manner, and through a fitting oilicer. 
 
 In n fcrence to the Bishop's first statement as to the teaching of 
 tlie College, accompanied by the emphatic declaration that Trinity 
 College is the last place to which he would send a son, the Corpora- 
 tion observe that the charge Jigaiast the teaching is most vague, and 
 that the ordinary rules of morality, to say nothing of Christian charity, 
 require titat any man who advances such a charge should, under any 
 circumstanecF, be prepared to substantiate it in deta'l Much more 
 must this be looked for in the instance of u Christian Bishop address- 
 ing his Clergy and Laity in Synod. 
 
 But, further, the Bishop is by law a member of the Corporation, 
 and he cannot escape the responsibility which, in that character, rests 
 upon him. 
 
 He has never, then, in hfs plnce in the Corporation, brought 
 forwitrd even the vague charge which he his hazarded in the meeting 
 of bis Syr.od, far less has he attempted to substantiate it. 
 
 Nay, more than this, he has reluseu to do so, when urged by the 
 Bishop of Toronto to adopt this * wiser and more honourable course.' 
 And his refusal was based on this ground, that he could not expect to 
 etfect a change in the teaching of the University. 
 
 (Signed) John Toronto, Prfsuhnt. 
 
 Chaijles Maguatii, Burmr and Secretary'* 
 
 The following Pastoral has since been issued by the Bishop of 
 Huron :— r,^ 
 
 " To the 'CUrgy and laity of the Diocese of llurm. 
 
 My Reverend Buetiihem and Brethren, — A document, ema- 
 nating from the Corporation of Trinity College, Toronto, has appeared 
 in the extra of the Ecclesiastical Gazdte, and has been circulated 
 amongst the Clergy and Laity of this Diocese. Tit is document, 
 contains so many mi>-statenients concerning matters in, -,vhich i am' 
 concerned, that I feel myself called upon to address yau,'and to state 
 the circumstances therein referred to as they really did occur. 
 
 I shall treat the subjects mentioned in this documcr^t in the same 
 order in which they are discussed in the extra. I am sorry that I 
 am thus placed under the necessity of publicly cont-raJicting state- 
 ments put forth by a body of such high respectability a.s,t:ifi Corpora- 
 
 t 
 
 i"i 
 
^« mm 
 
 • \ 
 
 !*' ■* 
 
 l"^ 
 
 350 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto. 
 
 tion of Trinity Colle«]ce ; but no other course remains to me ; justice 
 to myself and a re;;urd for the interests of truth compel m« to do so. 
 
 With referekice to the fourtli paraji;raph of the ext^^ the following 
 statement of what really did Dccur, previous to, and at the meeting of 
 the 24th of February, 1859, will show how eaieless the Corporation 
 of Trinity College has been in preparing the document to which 1 
 
 I received from the Bursar of Trinity College a circular, informing 
 me that a meetinj; of the Corporation wouM be held on the 24th ot 
 February, at which important measures would be- brought forward ; 
 but no report of resolutions of committee was traiisn»itt(id to mc, and 
 I had no intimation what these measures were. I had never attended 
 any meetings at Trinity Coll. gc up to that time. I >yent to loronto, 
 and on the morning of the 24th of February, being desuous to know 
 what the importai»t business was which was to be brouglit betore the 
 meeting, I inquired of the Rev. H. J. Grasett what the business was. 
 lie showed me a paper, on which were some resolutions ; (nit the 
 statute, tvlikh vac, afterimnh passed at (he meetiur/, wm not one u^ them. 
 I accompanied, not the Bishop, but Mr. Grasett, to the College ; I 
 saw the Bishop of Toronto only for a few minutes that morning ; and 
 wlien the statute referred to in the extra was read by the Provost, I 
 objected to it, and it will be remembered by the gentlemen who were 
 present that what I objected to was, that when a requisition tor the 
 removal of a Provost or Professor was signed by five members ot the 
 Corpor ition, and placed in the hands of the Chancellor, the option 
 was left to him of bringing tbe complaint before t!.e Corporation or 
 not, as he thought fit. I urged that when a requisition thus signed 
 was presented to the Chancellor, it should be imperative on him to 
 bring it before the governing body. I even suggested that the 
 number of signatures necessary to the requisition should be increased 
 to ten ; but that the Chancellor ought not to have the power ot 
 refusing to bring the requisition before the Corporation when thus 
 placed in his hands. I have not, therefore, mis-stated the effect ot 
 these statutes, as is asserted; but the writer of the extra has kept cut 
 of view that provision of them to which I have objected. All the 
 members of the Corporation then present united in the desire to pass 
 the statute, and after stating my objections I ceased to oppose. ^ I 
 mi^ht have pronounced my veto on the measure ; but under the cir- 
 cumstances, I did not think it advisable to do so. I was then, for the 
 first time, at a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity College. 1 had 
 nev^r assisted the institution in any way. I was surrounded by 
 
 • centlemen -who had largely contributed to the funds ot the University. 
 
 ■ They, tog«trier with the Bishop of Toronto, who had done so much, 
 and laboured.s^ long and so energetically to establish Trinity Col ege, 
 were desirous that the statute should pass ; I therefore did not think 
 it wise to use tUe power which I possessed, to veto their wish con- 
 cerning this 8iu;ute. Had I done so, I fear the epithets winch would 
 have been lavished upon me would not have been more chaste, gentle, 
 . pr courteous man th^se which members of the Corporation of Trinity 
 
i ; justice 
 to do so. 
 following 
 lecting of 
 (rporation 
 1 which I 
 
 informinpr 
 
 le 24 th of 
 
 forward ; 
 
 mc, and 
 1' attended 
 > Toronto, 
 3 to know 
 before the 
 hiess WHS. 
 
 ; h)U the 
 le of thtni. 
 joliege; I 
 iiing ; and 
 Provost, I 
 who were 
 on for the 
 ers of the 
 the option 
 oration or 
 [jus signed 
 on him to 
 i tL.it the 
 J increased 
 ! power of 
 when thus 
 le effect of 
 IS kej)t cut 
 . All the 
 ire to pass 
 oppose. I 
 ler the cir- 
 len, for the 
 ge. I had 
 ounded by 
 Quiver^ity. 
 } so much, 
 ty College, 
 
 1 not think 
 ■ wish con- 
 hicU would 
 iste, gentle, 
 
 of Trinity 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto, 351 
 
 College-— a Church institution — have allowed themselves to employ 
 concerning a Bi?hop when speaking of me in public and in private. 
 
 It is much to be regretted that when the Corporation of Trinity 
 College, in their zeal, not to defend themielved, but to assail me, 
 resolvetl to come before the public, they were not more careful as to 
 the atatcUK'nts which they hazarded. Th«y appear to have acted 
 upon the principle, that a man may, to detend himself, employ any 
 means to weaken or wound Idj* adversary. This principle holds good 
 with those who rely for victory on physical strength. But the use of 
 such an expeUient in literary warfare, more particularly where religion 
 is ct»ncerned, has ever been justly regarded as unworthy of the scholar 
 and the gentleman. A man doen not defend himself, or strengthen 
 his position, by endeavouring to inflict a wound on the reputation of 
 his opponent. Such conduct generally recoils, with crushing force, 
 upon the head of him who has been guilty of it. 
 
 I will now direct attention to the statement which I made at the 
 meeting of the S^nod of my Diocese. A clerical member of tlie 
 Synod gave notice of a njotion concerning Trinity College. I told 
 this gentleman, before he pi-ojmcd Ids mution, that I mm opjmnl to ?V, 
 atnl i^lwuhl he a<j((ind him. lie persevered in bringijig it before the 
 Synod, ami in a long speech, in which he uttered the most glowing 
 encomiums on Trinity College, moved its adoption, and was seconded 
 by a friend. When tlic resolution was thus before the Synod, a lay 
 deltgute stood up, and requested me to give my opinion on the subject 
 (»f the resolution. This 1 did as nearly as I can remember in the 
 following words : — 
 
 • Being ealltd upon by a member of the Synod to give my opinion 
 Uj»on the question n<»w before the meeting, I shall do so fully and 
 faithfully, as it is not my wisli to give an opinion by halves upon so 
 important a sul ject. 1 ciinnot agree with the mover of the resolution 
 in thii exaggerated eulogium which he has pronounced on Trinity 
 College. 1 have taken every pains for two years to inform myself 
 concerning the teaching of the University, and I cannot approve of it. 
 I think it dangerous to the young men educated there, njore particu- 
 larly if they are educated for the Ministry. I could not comply with 
 the request contained in the resolution, for I .should thereby encoura^^e 
 parties to send their sons to the College, and 1 would not for any con- 
 sideration send a son of mine to the institution. Nor do I see any 
 prospect of affecting a change in the teaching of the University, as by 
 a recent statute the Chancellor is interposed between the Professors 
 and the Corporation, and power is given to suppress any complaint 
 against a Provost or Professor, even if preferred by all the Bishops in 
 the Corporation.* AVbat I intend to say in this letter concerning this 
 statement will be contained in the remarks which I am about to make 
 on the contents of the last paragraph of the extra. 
 
 A passage from a letter of the Bishop of Toronto to me, written in 
 April last, when we had a correspondence on the subject of Trinity 
 College, is quoted, and it is added, *That my refusal to adopt what 
 his Lordsliip called the wiser and more honourable course, was based 
 
 i 
 
 i I 
 
 ''. II 
 
 3i^n 
 
t* 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 . i 
 
 r 1 
 
 35JJ The Bishop of Huron and Trinity Colleye, Toronto, 
 
 on this jrroim.1, that I could not expect to effect a clianjre in the teaching 
 of the UiuvMsity.' I never statca any such Rround ior my rctusa . 
 To prove this I have only to quote th^* pas^a-e from my lottcr in which 
 I repltod t(. the IJi^hop of Toronto. The pu^^-a-a ia as toUows :- You 
 Piiv thivt in early lite you adopted the rule, never, if imssiUe, to allow 
 an opportunity of doin- good to pass un.rnprovrd ; all ^vho are 
 ucnuainted with the history of your life will acknowledge that few men 
 have more fully acted upon this rule.— But there u another rule, 
 having Divine .auction, which I feel assured yon wMild <h'.sire to 
 ohseive, and which must re-nhite my conduct towuids Iruaty Ci.lh«ge ; 
 it ii.. " Abstain from all appearance of evil." I feel that I am bound to 
 act up to this rub', and a.s / cannot in wy mul opimuwoj the (.achinj 
 ofTnAitf/ CoU^'r, I believe that my app.'arinj,' to sanction it wonlU be 
 a pa.itive evii; and would expose mc to the con.lcm.iation which the 
 Apostle says is the just portion of those who say, "Let us do evd that 
 ffood may come.'" The correspondence from which I have quoted, 
 Fook place in April last. From the above extract it will be .s.en that 
 thou.'h I did not, in my place in the Corporation hrmg forward a 
 charse af^ainst the teaching of the University ; yet I made tlie charge 
 in tire most solemn form in which I couhl put it to the Presideiit of 
 the Corporation, and as I recciv d no answer to my letter, I concluded 
 either that the President was indifferent as to what opinion 1 might 
 entertain of the teaching of Trinity College, or that he concurred in 
 the view which I expressed, in t!»e same letter, * that it was a wiser 
 course for m > to stand aloof from the University, than by a public 
 protest to exhibit the melancholy picture of a house divided against 
 
 1 should not even, wlien called upon by a member of my Synod, 
 have '»iveu expression to the opinion whicli ^ had formed ot inmty 
 College, had I not previously, in the most pointed and solemn maniier, 
 given expression to thci same opinion to the Presi lent of that institu- 
 
 **Tn my opinion this waa the time for the Corporation of Trinity 
 Colle«^e to have applied to me to slate what was the teaching to which 
 I objected. It would have been a much more wise and honourable 
 course, when the charge wiis thus made to the head of the institution, 
 to have inquired into it, than to wait in silence until I had preterred 
 the same charge, in compliance witli a request made to me by a mem- 
 ber of the Synod, and then to publish a document occupied in the 
 discussion of a comparatively unimportant statute, and calculated to 
 divert public attention from the important subject, namely, tfie danger- 
 ous t'aching of Tnuitif College, , , 
 
 I do not hold myself responsible to any man for the opinions which 
 I entertain. But, as I have in the present instance, when apt)ealed 
 to by a member of my Synod, expressed my opinion of Trinity 
 College. I am prepared to submit the grounds upon which I have 
 formed that opinion to aay of ray Clergy, or of tho iaity ol my 
 Diocese who may desire it I am in possession of ample information 
 
caching 
 refusal. 
 11 which 
 —'You 
 to allow 
 vlio are 
 few men 
 er rult», 
 csire to 
 y<>Uo<;e ; 
 >ounU to 
 
 k'ould be 
 hich the 
 t;vil that 
 
 quoted, 
 ecn tliat 
 rward a 
 G charge 
 •ident of 
 [)ticluded 
 
 I might 
 ;urred in 
 J a wiser 
 a public 
 \ against 
 
 y Synod, 
 f Tritiity 
 t manner, 
 t institu- 
 
 • Trinity 
 to which 
 
 )nourable 
 stitution, 
 preferred 
 y a mem- 
 cd in the 
 ulaled to 
 '{€ dmiger- 
 
 i)ns which 
 appealed 
 r Trinity 
 h I have 
 ty of my 
 formation 
 
 lin thai liberty and inde- 
 
 ^e to those who ore tc 
 
 asonin;!: men. 
 
 rjuscrjpt, but published 
 
 jity of Trinity College ; 
 
 The Bishop qf Huron and Trinity College, Toronto, 353 
 
 upon the subject, which I am ready to impart to those for whose satis- 
 factiun and irdidance tlie opinion was expressed. 
 
 Aniv ngj>t other documents 1 have in my po«»sr -ion a manuscript 
 known in Trhiity College by the name of 'The Provost's Catechism ;' 
 it consi:*ts of 7U questions with antswers. It is placed in the hands 
 of every student entering the University, and all are expected to 
 learn It. Imhpendently <»f the fact tliiJt such a mode of dealing with 
 men is unlienrd of in any University at home, I consider the teaching 
 of this catechism dangerous in the hijihest degree ; the views put 
 forth are un.-(umd and un -Protectant. The explanations of Scripture 
 are one-!*iiled ; the whole thing u calculated to indoctrinate the youths 
 educated at the institution with the views of the author of 'the 
 catechism,* and to prepare them to propngate the views amongst the 
 members of our conjmunion throughout tiie country. An institution 
 which adopts such an expedient 1 /"iin/^t re<rard ai safe. The mind? 
 of young men which are, for th- '^ur years, jbrced into this 
 
 mould, will not, for a long time, i 
 pende:»ce of thought wlilcjj are 
 minister She Wt)rd of Life to inte» 
 
 Let this catechism be no longer k 
 and circuh'.ted as the text-hook of the t.. 
 
 arid I will venture to predict that the same conclusion at which I have 
 arrived will be expressed by nimy, namely, that the teaching of thU 
 catechism i^ dan</erom in the eA-tnme. 
 
 I have been indue d, my Uev trend Brethren and Br-^thren, to 
 address you upon this subject because of the honoured name which is 
 atlixed to the document 1 have been considering ; had it borne any 
 other signature I sliould have allowed it to pass in silence'. But such 
 is the reypc'ct whieh I entertiiin towards the President of Trinity 
 College Corporation, thiit nothing can ever weaken the feelings of 
 veneration with which I rt^aird him. We know that the hi^ihest 
 faculties and the most exalttd niental powers succumb to time ; and if 
 his Lordsliip is not now what he once was, if his memory does not 
 faithfully recoj d events as in years past, allowance should be niade for 
 this by his friends, and those who act with him and lor him should be 
 careful not to lead him to lend his name to any proceeding unworthy 
 of the position he has so long filled with honour, and calculated, in 
 the evening of his days, to bring a cloud over the high reputation he 
 has so nobly won. 
 
 I am, my lieverend Brethren and Brethren, with earnest prayer 
 that God e Spirit may be poured out upon us to guide us into all truth. 
 
 Your faithful Friend and Pastor, 
 
 BENJ. HURON. 
 London, July 21at, I860.** 
 
 (A letter has appeared from the Provost of Trinity College relative 
 to the statement concerning " The Provost*s Catechism/ firom which 
 it seems that the Bishop of Huron has mistaken the facts. We have 
 no room for it at present.) 
 
 NO. ClilX. E E 
 
7-.:<Z 
 
 . ' -.'J . -•• .»' ■ - 
 
 
 Ni 
 
 11^ 
 
 OK/4 
 
 m 
 
 ''{•\'.vf*' •;•• 
 
 ■•.■.•!•■ ■ 
 
 ■■"';■ ■,'''■;■'.■> ''-: 
 
 y \. 
 
 
 
 '■,-'S' :•' 
 
 ^ .1 
 
 p I 
 
 ^ii 
 
 
 
H '.' 
 
 K ■ •> 
 
 
 ■V.S' 
 
 
 ■■•v'V^i 
 
 
 
 
 '■■^■■'iy.mJi ,Vi5';i";*.,.<; iJSft'' 
 
 
 
 
 ■ ■;<■.■•■ 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 in 
 
 li 
 
 ! . 
 
 I.-- 
 
 
 
 'iir'! 
 
 
 
 liHi: 
 
3812 
 
 :i 
 
 THE BISHOP OP HURON AND TRINITY COLLEGE, 
 
 TORONTO. 
 
 We feel it our Inty to print the following document in reference 
 to the Bishop ol Huron's charges against Trinity College. We 
 extract it from the Canadian Ecdmaitkal Gazette of August lo. 
 
 TRINITY COLLEGE. 
 
 At a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity College, held on 
 Wednesday, August 8th, 1860 (present : The Hon. and Right Rev. 
 the Lord Bishop of Toronto ; the Hon. Sir John Beverley Kobmson, 
 Bart., Chancellor of the University; the Rev. the Provost of Trinity 
 ColU •'e ; Professor Bovell, M.D. j The Ver.. A. N. Bethune, D.D., 
 D.C.L., Archdeacon of York ; the Hon. G. W. Allan ; Lewis Motfatt, 
 Esq. ; the Hon. Mr. Vice-Chancellor Spragge ; James M. Strachan, 
 E3q. ; the Hon. Sir Allan Napier MacNab, Bart.; Samuel Bickerton 
 Harman, B.C.L. ; the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron, D.CX. ; the 
 Rev. T. B. Fuller, D.D. D.C.L. ; the Rev. S. Givins), the following 
 minute was unanimously adopted : 
 
 The Corporation of Trinity College have had their attention 
 dir> cted to a Pastoral, addressed by the Lord Bishop of Huron, to the 
 Clergy and Laity of his Diocese, in reply to a statement put forth by 
 them, bearing date June 29th, 1860. 
 
 In this pastoral the Bishop of Huron asserts that the Corporation 
 have made "many misstatements" in the document put forth by 
 
 them. . « 
 
 He first says, ** no report of resolutions of committee was trans- 
 mitted to me," intending, as it would seem, to impugn the assertion of 
 the Corporation thai the statute, to which the Bishop of Huron pub- 
 licly objected in his Sj nod, was transmitted to him " with the rest of 
 the report cf thu committee." The Corporation see no cause to 
 retract their assertion that this report was transmitted to the Bishop 
 of Huron. Not only was it the avowed determination of the Corpo- 
 ration to send the document to his Lordship, but the Corporation are 
 satisfied that it was sent ; although they admit that the transmission 
 of the document does not necessarily imply its reception by his Lord- 
 ship, if indeed this be the fact which he intends to deny, when he 
 says that " no report of .-esolutions of committee was transmitted to 
 him." The simple question is, did the Bishop of Huron, or did he 
 not, receive, some days before the meeting, a paper containing a 
 report of the committee on the statutes which were proposed and 
 adopted at the meeting ? If not, where did he procure the copy 
 which he used at the meeting of the Corporation ? The Corporation 
 put this inquiry deliberately and advisedly. 
 
 The Bi^l'.on of Uuroii next states that, being thus in the durk as to 
 the important business which was to be transacted, and being n..;urally 
 
xSi 
 
 tftirence 
 I. We 
 5. 
 
 beld on 
 lit Rev. 
 ^binsoD} 
 Trinity 
 J, D.D., 
 Motfatt, 
 trachan, 
 ickerton 
 L. ; the 
 Dllowing 
 
 ittention 
 n, to the 
 forth by 
 
 ■poration 
 forth by 
 
 S3 trans- 
 lertion of 
 ron pub- 
 e rest of 
 cause to 
 e Bishop 
 le Corpo- 
 ation are 
 ismission 
 his Lord- 
 witen he 
 mitted to 
 tr did he 
 taining a 
 osed and 
 the copy 
 rporatioii 
 
 iiirk as to 
 n^iurally 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College^ Toronto. 383 
 
 anxious to' be informed on so grave a subject, he "inquired of the 
 Rev. H. J. Grasett what the business was." The official summons 
 from the Bursar was, according to the Bishop's statement, the only 
 invitation wiiich he received to be present at Toronto, on the 24t!i of 
 February. He has evidently overlooked the following letter addressed 
 to him, on the 18th, by the Bishop of Toronto : 
 
 I r 
 
 Mt Dear Lobd, 
 
 (Copy.) 
 
 ToBOHio, Pebrttary 18<A, 18ii9. 
 
 We have been attempting for some time to make such modifications 
 in the rules and regulations for the government of Trinity College, ab 
 your Lordship's accession to a share in the management would seem 
 to require. But the difficulty of getting a full meeting of the Corpora- 
 tion, owing to the frequent absence of the Chancellor, Sir John B. 
 Robinson, and the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron, has occasioned un- 
 avoidable delay. 
 
 We have novr, however, agreed to a draft of the few changes that 
 are thought necessary, and we propose to assemble in the council 
 chamber of Trinity, on Thursday the 24th instant, at three o'clock p.m. 
 for their final consideration in view to their adoption. 
 
 In requesting your Lordship to take your place in the Corporation 
 on this occasion, I may truthfully observe that Trinity College is, and 
 was from the first, intended by all parties favourable to it& establish- 
 ment, to be the Church University of the Province of Upper Canada. 
 Hence the provision in the charter, enabling the Bishops to meet for 
 the management of its concerns, on the footing of perfect equality. 
 
 To secure this important object, we obtained the munificent patron- 
 age of the Society for the rro2Jagatian of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 
 a permanent endowment, and frequent pecuniary donations. To the 
 same cause we owe likewise the liberal grants of the Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledgey and the cordial support of the members 
 of our beloved Church, not only in England, but likewise throughout 
 the Province and in the United States. 
 
 I still hope to see the three Bishops in their seats as heads and con- 
 conservators of the institution, and working cordially together in 
 promoting its effectiveness, and extending its blessings through the 
 colony. 
 
 If not inconvenient to your Lordship I would respectfully suggest 
 that it might be of advantage for us to meet the Chancellor, Sir John 
 B. Robinson, Bart, and the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron, in his 
 office, at ten or eleven o'clock, a.m. on Thursday, the 24th, the day of 
 meeting, to talk over the business to come before the Corporation in 
 the afternoon, and should any amendments occur, they may still be 
 adopted, and thus secure a pleasant unity ia our proceedings. I 
 remain, my dear Lord, your's faithfully, 
 
 JOHN TORONTO. 
 
 Tli« Kiglit liev. the Lord Bishop of Huron. 
 
 I 
 
 I. 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
I,):! ' 
 
 fc Jv 
 
 .if 
 
 f< 5 
 
 
 '}? 
 
 #: ft 
 
 il 
 
 384 7'Ae i>*wAoj» 0/ iiurOM und Trinity College, Toronto. 
 
 Of this letter his Lordship says nothing ; yet, strange to say, on 
 arriving in Toronto he acted upon it. He did, at the time appomted, 
 present himself at Mr. Cameron's office, and thence go to the residence 
 of the Bishop of Toronto. After consulting with him, he returned 
 to Mr. Cameron, and informed him that, having seen the Bishop ot 
 Toronto, he had agreed >vith him respecting the report of the com- 
 mittee on statutes, except in a few unimportant particulars, which he 
 thouf^ht would create no difficulty at the meeting. 
 
 The Corporation cannot conceive that this understanding with the 
 Bishop of Toronto could liave heen arrived at in the absence of any 
 writteii document in the hand of eitlier party, or at a casual meeting 
 which might properly be described in the terms which the Bisuop ot 
 Huron employs when lie says : J' I saw the Bishop of Toronto only 
 for a few minutes that morning." ^ 
 
 The Bishop of Huron next demurs to the assertion that "he accom- 
 panied the Bishop of Toronto to the meeting of the Corporation. 
 If these words necessarily imply more than that the Bishops presented 
 themselves to the meeting together, the Corporation willingly with- 
 draw them, together with any imputation which the Bishop of Huron 
 may suppose them to convey. ^ , t»' t e 
 
 At the opening of the business of the meeting the Bishop ot 
 Toronto spoke to this effect : " I am happy to inform the gentlemen 
 present that the Bishop of Huron and myself are of one mind respect- 
 ing the statutes now to be proposed for adoption j the Bishop has one 
 or^two unimportant amendments to suggest, which 1 trust the Cor- 
 poration will adopt." The Bishop of Huron sat by and assented to 
 this statement The Corporation consider it impossible that, if fcorae 
 new statute, of which the Bishop of Huron had never heard, had been 
 brought forward for adoption, and brought forward as forming a part 
 of the body of the statutes respecting which he had consulted with 
 the Bishop of Toronto (and in this way they affirm that it must have 
 been brought forward, if it was brought forward at all), he should not 
 have uttered one single syllable of remonstrance or surprise. 
 
 As for the opposition offered to the statute at the time, not as 
 introduced by surprise, but on its proper merits, the recollection of all 
 present would show that the Bishop of Huron took no exception 
 against the vesting of a discretionary power in the Chancellor, but 
 merely offered some suggestions respecting details, which he by no 
 means pressed ; and that he certainly left on the minds of all present 
 an impression as to his feeling respecting the statute, directly opposed 
 to that which his pastoral letter would convey. 
 
 Tlie Corporation would desire to make every reasonable allovvancft 
 for the imperfect recollection of circumstances long past of which no 
 written record remains, but they owe it to themselves to declare that 
 they see no reason to retract any assertion which they have put forth, 
 and that they believe that if the Bishop of Huron had fairly availed 
 himself of the proper means of re-calling the occurrences of that time, 
 he could not have impugtivd their assertions as he has thought proper 
 to do so. 
 
Bay, on 
 
 lointtd, 
 sidenco 
 iturned 
 shop of 
 le com- 
 lich he 
 
 ath the 
 of any 
 
 meeting 
 shop of 
 to only 
 
 ! accom- 
 ration.'* 
 •esented 
 [y with- 
 ' Huron 
 
 sliop of 
 iitleuien 
 respect- 
 has one 
 he Cor- 
 3nted to 
 if (jome 
 lad been 
 ig a part 
 ted with 
 ust have 
 ould not 
 
 !, not as 
 ion of all 
 xecptiou 
 llor, but 
 le by no 
 present 
 opposed 
 
 liovvance 
 kvitich no 
 :lare that 
 >ut forth, 
 y availed 
 hat time, 
 it proper 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Tnnity College, Toronto, 385 
 
 The Corporation, however, proceed to notice one or two statements 
 of the Bishop of Huron which they confess have greatly surpris»'d 
 them ; and though, in any personal controversy, they would ghidiy 
 have iorhorne to point out so particularly, as they will now proceed 
 to do, the just grounds of their surprise; yet in vindicating an im- 
 portant institution, in which the Church of England has a deep interest, 
 trt)m a very injurious attack, which they feel to have been li-Hitly and 
 inconsiderately made, they cannot properly refrain. "^ 
 
 The Bishop of Huron quotes from the statement of the Corporation 
 the following words : « And his refusal (to bring forward in his place 
 in the Corporation his charge against the teaching of the College) was 
 based on this ground, tliat he could not expect to effect a chan'-e in 
 the teaching of the University; "and he adds, "I never stated any 
 such ground for my refusal. To prove tliis I have only to quote the 
 passage from my letter in which I replied to the Bishop of Toronto. 
 Ihe passage is as follows: • You say that in early life you adopted 
 the rule, never, if possible, to allow an opportunity of doing good to 
 pass uniP^proved : all who are acquainted with the history of your 
 lite will acknowledge that few men have more fully acted upon this 
 rule. But there is another rule having divine sanction, which I feel 
 assured you would desire to observe, and which must regulate my 
 conduct^^towards Trinity College ; it is, « Abstain from all appearance 
 ol evil. I feel that I am bound to act up to this rule, and as / 
 cannot m my soul approve of the teaching of Triuity College, I believe 
 tliat my appearing to sanction it, would be a positive evil, and would 
 expose me to the condemnation which the Apostle says is the just 
 portion of those who gay, « Let us do evil that good may come.'"" 
 
 Here the Bishop's quotation from his letter ends, though the rem 
 next tvwds of that letter are the following : « Were I to go to the 
 Council, as you say, would be the • wiser and more honourable course,* 
 and enter my protest against the teaching which I disapprove, no pood 
 result would follow, m I cmdd not expect to effect a change in the tench- 
 ingof the University, and the melancholy picture of a house divided 
 against itself would be presented.'* 
 
 It thus appears that, in order to disprove the assertion of the Cor- 
 poration, the Bishop of Huron quotes the first half of a paragraph of 
 his better, stopping just when he arrives at those words, used by him- 
 selt m the same letter, which would establish their assertion and dis- 
 prove his own. The Corporation also invite particular attention to 
 the tact, that, after denying the ground for his refusal which the v. ds 
 of his own letter, left unquoted by him, had distinctly expressed, the 
 Bishop cf Huron proceeds to quote, in his pastoral, expressions which 
 immediately follow them, thus giving a resume of the whole sentence, 
 with the omission of the only viords upon which the Bishop and the 
 Corporation are nt issue. 
 
 Once more, the Bishop of Huron says : 
 
 « From the above extract it will be seen that though I did not, in 
 my place in ihe Corporation, bring forward a charge against the 
 teaching of the University, yet i make the charge in the most solemn 
 
 \ 
 
 \> 
 
 L'.^' 
 
 ! t 
 
 ; • 'i 
 
386 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto. 
 
 form in which I could put it to the President f /K^.^f Pf f ,^"'p?.^ 
 as I received no answer to my letter, I concluded either Xh^xt the Pte' 
 sident was indifferent as to what opinion I nught entertam of the 
 teaching of Trinity College, or that he concurred in the view which I 
 expressed in the sJme letter, * that it was a wiser course f|>r me to 
 stand aloof from the University, than by a public protest to exhibit 
 the melancholy picture of a house divided against itselt. 
 
 « I should not, even when called upon by a member of m/ Sy«?«, 
 have Riven expression to the opinion which I had formed of Trinity 
 College, had I not, previously, in the most pointed and solemn manner, 
 given expression to the same opinion to the President of that Inst.tu- 
 
 The Corporation regret that they are compelled to characterize this 
 passage as most disingenious. In proof of this assertion they quo e 
 Eelowlrom two letters of the Bishop of Huron and from the reply 
 of the Bishop of Toronto to the first of those letters. In a letter, 
 dated April 19th, 1860, the Bishop of Huron uses the words: I 
 disapprove of Trinity College in many things." He thus gave the 
 Bishop of Toronto opportunity of appealing to him. m the following 
 earnest terms, to state the grounds of his disapproval. The letter ot 
 the Bishop of Toronto bears date April 25th, 1860, and it may here 
 be observed thar the correspondence originated m a let er addressed 
 to the Bishop of Huron by ihe Bursar of Trinity College, mvitmg 
 him. in the name of the Corporation, to exercise his privilege ot 
 norainaiing five members of the College Council from his own Diocese, 
 in accordance with a statute to which he had so recently given his 
 assent. 
 MyDeabLoRD, Tor^mo, April 25th, mo. 
 
 I have read your letter of the 19th inst. with very much regret, 
 because it has been my earnest wish that you should take your place 
 at the Council of Trinity College, as you have equal power and 
 authority with myself, and give us your hearty and strenuous assist- 
 ance in its government and direction. Suffer me therefore to entreat 
 you to re-consider and withdraw your letter of the 19th inst., and to 
 proceed to the nomination of those whom you desire to represent your 
 Diocese in the University. 
 
 Trinity College being always intended for the benefit ot Upper 
 Canada, and desirinsr no pre-eminence in the establishment, it was 
 provided in the chart'er at my desire that all the Bishops should enjoy 
 
 equal authority. . . ». x» • ♦! « 
 
 There are, you say, some things which you disapprove ot m tiia 
 Institution, if so, permit me, as the wiser and more honourable course, 
 to request you to come among us and point them out, that they may 
 be fairly examined and modified if deficient, or confirmed if found 
 correct. I feel assured, from the knowledge I have of the members of 
 our Council, that they are not unreasonable or disposed to retain any- 
 thing really objectionable. 
 The authorities of Trinity College are quite aware, that among the 
 
ion, and 
 the Pre- 
 n of the 
 which I 
 r me to 
 ) exhibit 
 
 ^ Synod, 
 
 Trinity 
 
 manner, 
 
 ; Institu- 
 
 erize thi8 
 ey quote 
 :he reply 
 a letter, 
 ords: "I 
 gave the 
 following 
 ! letter of 
 may here 
 addressed 
 , inviting 
 ivilege of 
 n Diocese, 
 given his 
 
 5fA, 1860. 
 
 ch regret, 
 ^our place 
 )ower and 
 ous assist- 
 to entreat 
 St., and to 
 esent your 
 
 of Upper 
 int, it was 
 ould enjoy 
 
 ! of in the 
 kble course, 
 t they may 
 d if found 
 members of 
 retain any- 
 
 among the 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto. 887 
 
 members of the Church in Upper Canada there are in some few points 
 differences of opinion, but they have never considered them, nor are 
 they disposed to consider them, a just cause of separation and estrange- 
 ment. The same differences, and in much the same proportion, exist 
 in England, as they do in the Church here, but the true Christians of 
 both parties are found associating to promote and support institutions 
 really good, and they disapprove of those who make them grounds of 
 contention. 
 
 This being the view which I take, and have always taken of the 
 University's relation to the Church, I desire without offence to state, 
 that as it seems to me, you are not at liberty to refuse to discharge 
 the important duties of an office to which you have been appointed by 
 competent authority without incurring a responsibility which the 
 reasons you assign will in no way sustain or justify. 
 
 In truth, the very fact of your separation from us will inflict upon 
 the Church and University an injury that you can never repair. 
 
 One of the rules of conduct which I adopted in early life was the 
 following : " Never if possible to permit an opportunity of doing good 
 to pass me unimproved." In carrying out this principle I may have 
 frequently failed and suffered much discouragement, mortification and 
 sorrow ; but, believing that no thought or effort for good is ever lost 
 in our Lord's kind Providence, I persevered in my course and I now 
 find, on looking back when nearly at the end of my journey, that the 
 balance is greatly in my favour. To bear and forbear in all situations 
 of life, is the ordained lot and the wisdom of humanity, and our 
 struggle after good, like prayer, should never cease. Hence, I have 
 always strongly felt the truth of the Apostle's doctrine, " That to him 
 that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin^" 
 
 Again entreating you to re-consider and withdraw your letter, I 
 remain, my dear Lord, your faithful Brother in Chkist, 
 
 JOHN TORONTO* 
 
 To thb strong and affectionate appeal of the Bishop of Toronto, 
 the Bishop of Huron replied in a letter containing the following 
 passage : 
 
 "I now come to that part of your leUer which has caused me much 
 anxious thought. I would preface my remarks by assuring you that, 
 in the commencement of my Episcopal career, moved by the high 
 opinion which I entertained of your experience and judgment, I formed 
 the resolution to avail myself of your advice and fatherly counsel 
 whenever I could do so, without doing violence to my own convictions, 
 and it has caused me many unpleasant feelings, that I am not able, in 
 the present case, to agree with the opinion which you have advanced. 
 
 You say that in early life you adopted the rule, " never, if possible, 
 to permit an opportunity of doing good to pass unimproved," Any 
 one at all acquainted with the history of your life will acknowledge 
 that few men have more fully acted up to this excellent rule. But 
 there is another rule of Divine authority, which, I feel assured, you 
 would not desire to overlook, and which regulates my conduct towards 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 ( 
 
.. t 
 
 ft 1 
 
 1 
 
 .4' 
 
 if ^ 
 
 » Si 
 1 (' 
 
 ■r£ 
 
 
 ¥ «1 
 
 388 7%e Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto, 
 
 Trinity College. It is tl»e Apostolic rule, « Abstain from ull opf>ear- 
 niice of evil." I feel that I am bound to act up to this rule, and as I 
 cannot, in my soul, approve of the theological teaching of Tniuty 
 College, I believe that my appearing to sanction thia teachmg would 
 be a positive evil, and would expose me to the condemnation which 
 the Apostle says is the just po.tion of those who say, "let us do evil 
 that good may come ;" were I to go to the Council, as you say would 
 be the *' wiser and more honourable course," and enter my protest 
 tt-'ainst the teaching which I disapprove, no good result would follow, 
 as I could not expect to effect a change in the teachmg of the Univer- 
 sity, and the melancholy picture of a house divided against Jtselt would 
 be presented. To avoid this I have heretofore kept aloof irom the 
 University, and I am still satisfied in my own mind, that it is better for 
 nie thus to act than to introduce discussion into the Council, and thus 
 render patent to the world the differences which unhappily exist 
 amongst us. Praying earnestly that the Lord will grant to us both, 
 that wisdom, which cometh down from above and which is pure and 
 peaceable, so that we may be enabled to follow peace with all men, 1 
 remain, my dear Lord, with unabated respect and esteem, your brother 
 in the ministry, BENJ. HURON. 
 
 p.S. I have written the above as a private communication to youp 
 
 Lordsiiip, as your letter of the 25th of April appeared to me to require 
 it, ^* ^^* 
 
 Such is the correspondence. In the first letter the Bi hop of Huron 
 declares that he disapproves of Trinity College in many things ; in 
 the second, the Bishop of Toronto urges him to give explicit expression 
 to that disapproval at the proper time and place ; in the third, the 
 Bishop of Huron refuses to do this, because he considers that such inter- 
 ference would be useless, at the same time stating that his letter is a 
 private communication. And yet he does not fear to commit himself 
 to the following statement: that he had made a charge against the 
 teaching of the College, in the most solemn form in which he could put 
 it to the President of the Corporation; that he received no answer to his 
 letter, and that he thence concluded that the President was indifferent 
 to his opini3n, or that he agreed vrith him in thinking that it was 
 better that he should stand aloof from the College. 
 
 Any reader would justly infer from this statement that such a letter 
 as that of the Bishop of Toronto could never have been addressed to 
 the Bishop of Huron ; he would, indeed, infer that the whole trans- 
 action had been utterly the reverse of what it really was ; that the 
 Bishop of Huron had openly and candidly stated objections against 
 which the Bishop of Toronto shut his ear, rather than that the Bishop 
 of Huron refused to state objections for which the Bishop of Toronto 
 had most earnestly called, . , . « 
 
 The Bishop of Huron describes himself as having said m his Synod, 
 «* I have taken every pains for two years to inform myself concerning 
 the teacliing of the University j" and again, near the dose of his 
 
 ■/^ 
 
0, 
 
 apf»ear- 
 nn(l as I 
 Trinity 
 ijj wouU! 
 n which 
 s do evU 
 ly would 
 y protest 
 d follow, 
 i Univer- 
 i\t' would 
 from the 
 jetter for 
 and thus 
 ily exist 
 us both, 
 pure and 
 it men, I 
 r brother 
 
 ruON. 
 
 n to your 
 o require 
 B. H. 
 
 of Huron 
 lings ; in 
 xpression 
 third, the 
 uch inter- 
 letter is a 
 it himself 
 ;ainst the 
 could put 
 mfr to his 
 ndifterent 
 lat it was 
 
 ;h a letter 
 iressed to 
 ole trana- 
 i that the 
 IS against 
 he Bishop 
 f Toronto 
 
 '{ 
 
 letter he adds, " I am in possession of ample information upon the 
 subject, which I am ready to impart to tliose for whose satisfaction 
 and guidance the opinion (given in the Huron Synod) was expressed." 
 Yet the Bishop of Huron says elsewhere, " I was then (Februar) 24th, 
 1859) for the first time at a meeting of the Corporation of Trinity 
 College." And he his never been there since. He has not only not 
 carefully used, but studiously shunned, every open method of inform- 
 ing himself of the teaching of the College. He has preferred to 
 observe and acquaint himself with the College undtT all the disadvan- 
 ages inseparabla from a distant and hostile position, while he had 
 every opportunity of acquiring that intimate and familiar acquaintance 
 with the details of its system, which every friend of the Church and 
 of the Univeroi y would desire that our Bishops in Upper Canada 
 should possess, and which is indeed a part of the duty which they are 
 bound to assume on entering upon the episcopal office. 
 
 As to the character of the instruction given in the College, the 
 Corporation have full confidence in the teaching of the Provost, as 
 being in entire conformity with the formularies of our Church, as ' 
 elucidated by her great writers ; and they now make a public demand 
 of the Bishop of Huron, to state definitely the points on which his 
 objections are founded. They cannot tamely suffer any officer of the 
 College to be assailed as " unsound and unprotestant,*' merely because 
 he keeps close to those formularies and summaries of doctrine which 
 constitute the only guide which we can safely and consistently follow 
 as members of the Church of Kngland. 
 
 Of the closing paragraph of the Bisliop of Huron*s letter, the Cor- 
 poration will only permit themselves to say, that if the Bishop of 
 Huron had really entertained "the feelings of veneration,** which he ' 
 there affects to entertain, and which are assuredly entertained by every 
 other member of the Corporation towards the object of his remarks, 
 he could never have made himself responsible for language which has 
 drawn upon him the righteous indignation, not only of every Church- 
 man in this Diocese, but of every inhabitant of the Province to whom 
 the Bishop of Toronto is known, either by bis public services or by 
 the virtues of his personal character. 
 
 (Signed) John Toronto, President. 
 
 Charles Magrath, Bursar and Secretary. 
 
 .1 
 
 1. ., . 
 
 I 'I I' 
 
 ■i- 
 
 Ids Synod, 
 soncerning 
 ose of bis 
 
i 
 
'Hi' 
 
 THE BISHOP OF HUROX AND TRINITY COLLEGE, 
 
 TOKONTO. 
 
 The Bishop of Huron to the Clerical ami Lay GmtUmen com/tosing the 
 
 ExeciUlve Committee of the Synod of tfm JJiucese of Huron, 
 
 Mv Reveisend Brkthren and Bhethrejt, 
 
 Your resolution, requesting me to lay before tlie Diocese the proof» 
 upon wliich I h:\ve formed the opinion which I ex[)ressed concerning 
 the teachinj* of Trinity College, Toronto, has been placed in my 
 handd. In compliance with your request, I now proceed to redeem 
 the ple(?ge whicii I gave in my pastoral, of making known to the 
 clergy and lairy of my Diocese the grounds of my opinion, whenever 
 called upon to do so. 
 
 Some time after my return from England, in 1858, some griiduatear • 
 in Trinity College applied to me for ordination^ and it became my , 
 duty to examine them. I perceived that the views of some of these 
 gentlemen, more piirticularly concerning the character ^nd doctrii«v2 
 of the Church of Uome, were not such as I had always entertained. 
 
 .« ** . -M 
 
 !| 
 
■ 
 
 I 
 1: : 
 
 ■ 
 
 j 
 
Tht Bishop of ilitroH and Tnnihj Colle(/e, Toronto, 427 
 
 I ftuught out the cuujc ol* this, and after a gooj deal of examination 
 ami inquiry, I was led to the conclusion tliat the views held by these 
 |;entKMneii were traceable to tho teaching to which they had been 
 »»ul)jected dtning their Universif f ourse. The mode of teaching, &» 
 described to me, appeared to be ni^ihly objectionable, and the matter 
 taught was in my view most dangerous to all ntudents, more especially 
 to young men preparing for the ministry. I shall now direct attention 
 to these two points, the mode of teaching and the things taught. 
 
 In order that 1 should not fall into any error concerning the mode 
 of teaching in the University, I addressed, by leUer, several gentle- 
 men who have been connected with Trinity College, and I forwarded 
 to each of tliem a list of questions, to which I requested candid and 
 plain answers. The following are thvj questions and answers, from 
 which you may form your own opinion as to the mode of imparting 
 religious instruction to young men in Trinity College. 
 
 1. Was the attendance on the lectures on catechism compulsory? 
 
 2. Did the Provost at each lecture dictate questions and answers 
 from his own manuscript ? 
 
 3. Did the students write both questions and answers as he dictated 
 them ? 
 
 4. Were the students expected on the next lecture day to read the 
 answers as the I*rovost had dictated them ? 
 
 5. Did you ever know the Provost to lend his manuscript to a 
 student to correct his notes taken dov/n at lecture ? 
 
 6. Are there any copies of the manuscript thus corrected handed 
 down from class to clnss ? And is the book familiarly known among 
 the students as " 'I'he Provost's Catechism " ? 
 
 7. Did the Provost ever express his disapproval of tl]e use of these 
 note books ? 
 
 8. Are you aware whether a proposition to publish the manuscript 
 was ever made by any of the students, and what was the Provost'a 
 reason for disapproving of its publication ? 
 
 The following ansv/crs are from a layman residing in the Diocese 
 of Toronto. The answers are numbered to correspond with the 
 questions. 
 
 Ans. 1. — Attendance on tlie lectures is fully as compulsory as on 
 any other lecture prescribed, 
 
 Ans. 2.~Yes, it is the Provost*s regular mode of proceeding to 
 dictate questions and answers. 
 
 Aus. 3.— No i that would be impossible at the rate the Provost is 
 accustomed to go on. One of the first things a student does after 
 entering, is (on advice) to secure a copy of the manuscript, which 
 invariably corresponds, almost verbatim, with .that which the Provost 
 uses, except in some in.stances it may not perhaps be so full. As 
 each student enters the lecture room, he brings his own or another's 
 copy of this manuF-cript, tvhich Ise places on tiie table before him, in 
 the presence of the Provost, leaving it dosed until the questions 
 dictated on the last lecture day are answered or dispost^d of. Then 
 he opens his manuscript, au<l follows the Provost as far as he goes. 
 
 !| 
 
V] ' 
 
 it' 
 
 "i f 
 
 428 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto, 
 
 mnrkinff at the mae timo, If he notices any error or mistake. Apa^t 
 from this, he write* neither qucHtions nor annwers, nor does he take 
 notes wliich must be <nnte apparent to the Provo.-«t. 
 
 J,,., 4 —Yes ; that is th«i plan pursue ^ and never» in my experience, 
 dia 1 witness an answer, as reconhd in ti»e8« manuscripts, !'rove to 
 be inconect : but I have known other ansv .jrs refused, when tht7 did 
 not .suit tl»e Provost's views, or, ui he said, « were not the answers I 
 
 ^* J;',., 5 _No ; but I hftvc Ijeard lie did so ; hut whetiier he did or 
 not, the i)erfect agrcemeut of both proves that we have got a correct 
 
 ^'^^Am, 6.— These copies nov in use are p.^sitivcly correct copies of 
 the Provost's so far nn they go. These :ire ha.ule.l down from class 
 to class. The freshnuui (for whose benelit the catechism is designed) 
 either con' .h one for himself, or has one jjiven him by some ot the 
 students who have preceded him. I have been asked repeatedly by 
 the students, »• How do you like tlie Provost's catechu^m ? 
 
 Ans. 7.— I have never heard him do so. 
 
 Ans. 8—1 don't know. These statements are perfectly true, and 
 can be proved in the mo*t solemn manner. ^ 
 
 I now proceed to give the answers of a clergyman in the Diocese 
 
 of Huron. 
 
 ^1h». 1.— Attendance was compulsory. 
 
 Ans. 2.--The Provost at each lecture asked questions, evidently 
 
 from his manuscript, upon the notes which he had dietated at the 
 
 previous lecture, and of course the answers had to be taken from 
 
 his notes. . , 
 
 Ans. 3.— '^'t v»ud. uts I' ed every means to acquire the answers 
 which' the Provost required, and wijen they found ihey had not the 
 exact answer in their manuscript, they took down the answer given 
 
 by him. . ^ * i « 
 
 Ans, 4.— The students were required to give correct answers, taken 
 
 from the Provost's notes, to the questions asked by him. 
 
 jlns, 5. — Never ; but he lent his questions soujetimes. 
 
 Am 6.— Tliere is a catechism, question and answer, in common use 
 among the stuoents, handed down from cla-. to class, and familiarly 
 known as " The Provost's Catechism.** 
 
 Ans. 7. — Never that I know of. «... . »u 
 
 Ans. 8.-1 have heard the students speaking of wishing to have *he 
 catechism published, but I do not remember tlie Provost's objections. 
 
 The next answers are from a layman resident in the Diocese ot 
 
 Toronto : . , 
 
 Ans. I.— Yes; the Provost required an excuse for absence on every 
 
 occasion. . ^ i j 
 
 j_^^g o^Xhe Provo't lectured from his manuscript, and asked 
 questionl'on the next cay for lecture. He has frequently said, when 
 a question has not been answered satisfactorily, " That is not what 1 
 gave you." His questions were written as weh s Ins lectures. 
 Ans. 3.— Some of them took notes i others would have their prede- 
 
taken 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto. 429 
 
 feasor's books, and would only follow him while reading, and see 
 that they w«i« orrcct. 
 
 Ans. 4.— AV«» generolly answered in his own words, and if not, as 
 nearly a.s [wssiblc. 
 
 Am. 5. — He lent bis questions on ihe catechism un one or two 
 occasions, and his notes on the ai tides. I cannot answer positively 
 OS to his notes on the catochism. 
 
 Ati$. (>. — The nianuscript, with an «>xnct copy of his questions (as 
 taken by Mr. Wm. Jones, now of Cambridge), and the answer^ as 
 collectt'd (answer No. 3), were hanhd down. When I entered in 
 185G, I procured a book uoni Mr. Wm. Jones, from which to copy a 
 manusoript for myself. It was always spoken of as " The Provost's 
 Cateciiism." 
 
 Am, 7.-1 never beard of any disapproval, either directh' or 
 indirectly. ' 
 
 Am, 8. — I on several occasions have heard students propose to have 
 it published, and the reply generally given was " 7 Trovost would 
 not like it." Whether or not he was consulted, I cannot say. 
 
 The next set of answers is from a layman, now resident in the 
 Diocese of Huron. 
 
 Ans. 1. — Attendance on the catechism lecture was compulsory. 
 
 Ans. 2. — The Provost read from his manuscript as a continuous 
 lecture, but must have been aware tliat he had it either written, or 
 took very few notes in the room, and both questions and answers were 
 contained in his lecture, alt!iou<,'h not distinguished as sucJ' hy him 
 beiij;,^ probably aware tliat we had both questions and answers before us! 
 
 Ans» 3. — The students had both questions and answers written before 
 they entered the room, and only compared theirs with the Provost's 
 while he read. 
 
 Ans. 4. -—The students were expected on the lecture day to answer 
 the questions of the preceding lecture day in the substance, and as 
 much as possible in the words given. 
 
 Ans, 4. — I never did. 
 
 JM«.--Eaoh student of the first year either borrows, and copies a 
 manuscrii)t from the borrowed copy, or purchases from a student of 
 the second or third year his manuscript. 
 
 Ans. 7.— I never lieard him say anything ;>ro or con in the matter. 
 
 Ans. 8.—I never heard any proposition of the kind, though it mi^ht 
 have been made without my knowledge. ° 
 
 The rollowin:r is, a,! extract irom a note received from a lay gentle- 
 man, residing at some distance :— " I do not think the Provost has 
 ever given botli questions and answers to any student to copy, but I 
 heard when I was at College that he lent his questions on one occasion 
 and t!»at a copy was take;i of them. Of course, as soon as the students 
 had a copy of the questions which were to be put to them, they were 
 able to torm proper answers from the notes which they had*' taken 
 down from the last or preceding lecture. I don't remember hearin'^ 
 any copy called " The Provost's Catechism ;" I have beard of "The 
 Provost's Question?," meaning those questions which the Provost 
 
 h ! 
 
V 
 
 I: 
 
 # 
 
 ii: 
 
 430 The Bh/iojj of Huron anft TrhrUy Colleife, Toronto. 
 
 asks. I have h(>ard tlmt the Provost I-as been asked to pnblisli a 
 catechism, in order that the -students miglit be saved the trouble oi 
 writini^ out copies for themselves." . r n^ • -^ r> n 
 
 The following answers are from a graduate of Irinity College, 
 residing in the Diocese of Toronto :— 
 
 yl^,., i._Yes ; it was placed precisely on the same footmg with the 
 other subiects. Students absenting themselves from the catechism, or 
 any other lecture given by the Provost, were ohh^d to account saUs- 
 fadorUy to the Provost on tlui succeeding day, for tlieir absence 
 
 therefrom. ^ , /• n . 
 
 ^\ns 2 —Yes ; the Provost's mode of procedure was as tcllows. .— 
 At his first lecture to freshmen he read to us about thirty questions 
 (the number varied afterwards). The next Friday he questioned us 
 on the matter of tlu^ preceding Friday, and read to us iresh questions 
 and answers, suilicient to fill up the hour. ^ 
 
 Ans 3— The students had copies of the questions and answers 
 written, either by themselves, or students who had previously gra- 
 duated in Trinity College, and as the Provost read his lecture^ they 
 compared their manuscripts with ^i^nat rend and made alteraUon^ in the 
 references (texts of Scripture), or anything else in which there might 
 have been a discrepancy. They were thus assured of perfed accuracy. 
 Ans. 4.— Most assuredly they were; for I recollect that on one 
 occasion, a student of my year expressed the answer in a manner 
 which varied, by U''o vnimportant words, frori that dictated by the 
 Provost on the preceding Friday, and was corrected for it._ I reniem- 
 ber this the more distinctly, as every student who took pams with it, 
 used to repeat it with //ff'ra/ accuracy. ,, ^ *, 
 
 Ans. 5.— I understood, by report among the students, that the 
 Provost did at one time le^.d his manuscript to a student, and 1 
 always considered that this was the origin of the almost stereotyped 
 accuracy of our manuscripts. ^ . 
 
 Ans 6 —Yes ; generally a student, after his previous examination 
 in hit second year, at which time he passes his third and last exami- 
 nation in the catechism, either gives, lends, or sells his manuscript 
 catechism to junior students. In my case I obtained the loan ot a 
 manuscript catechism, and copied it out. It is^ familiarly known 
 among the students as " The Provost's Catechism. 
 
 Am. 7.— Never to my knowledge. ^ ,, , -^ 
 
 Ans 8 —No ; but I often wislied, for my own convenience, that it 
 liad been" printed and published, as the copying of it entailed a grer 
 deal of unnecessary labour upon me, and wasted much precious time , 
 in fact, I thought it on the whole a very strange proceeding. _ 
 
 I have stated fully my objections to this mode ot teaching in my 
 pastoral ; I need not here repeat them. ^ . » -.u .u„ 
 
 This manuscript known as ''The Provost's Catechism, with the 
 questions copied or corrected from his own manuscript, lent ior that 
 purro«p and tbe answers taken down carefully from his lips, ana 
 corrected from time to time, has been handed down from class to class, 
 and has been bought and sold by the students. I have not given the 
 
 nam 
 ansv^ 
 nece 
 lette 
 
 appo 
 lapj 
 luatt 
 
 i 
 
 P 
 
 
iblish a 
 )uble of 
 
 College, 
 
 villi the 
 liism, or 
 
 lit satin' 
 absence 
 
 lows : — 
 iiestions 
 oncd us 
 uestions 
 
 answers 
 
 sly gra- 
 
 iire they 
 
 >is in the 
 
 •e might 
 
 iccuracy, 
 
 on one 
 
 manner 
 
 1 by the 
 
 [ remem- 
 
 with it, 
 
 that the 
 it, and 1 
 reotyped 
 
 mination 
 5t exanii- 
 iinuscript 
 oan of a 
 y known 
 
 36, that it 
 1 a grer 
 ous time ; 
 
 s 
 
 h 
 
 names of those j^entlfmen from wliich I have received the above 
 answers to my questions, but 1 can obtain permission to do so if 
 necessary, and shall lay the originnl documents, togetlier with the 
 letters which acconij)anied them, before any member of the Synod 
 appointed for that purpose. There was but one gentleman to whom 
 I applied wiio expressed a wish "not to be at all implicated in the 
 matter." I have tlnncfoie not made any use of his communication. 
 
 
 i 
 
 P 
 
 ng in my 
 
 with the 
 
 t for that 
 
 lips, and 
 
 ,s to class, 
 
 given the 
 
 
ir^ 
 
 ::} 
 
 
 li 
 
 hi 
 
 ^ 'i 
 
 !f 
 
 
7 
 
 "Uttmimm. 
 
 THE BISHOP OF HURON AND TRINITY COLLEGE 
 
 TORONTO. * 
 
 {Continued from p. 4Z1.) 
 
 t NOW proceed to lay before you the teaching which I characterised 
 
 ^raZ'tef c7 T -"-/'r ?,"*^'""'' ^ ^^^''^ »^^«^^» when examTn ng 
 graduates of rnmty College, statements which they have reported as 
 
 made to them euher in the course of lectures, or in conversS with 
 the Divinity Professor. Some of these I took down at the ?ime I 
 heard them, such as the following, that "the Church of England lost 
 tln^!^* T?'T '"r ^^'»?«^vhich were in themselves good ind 
 to int?odlo i f'*''" '* '''"' "J."-^tiacation was an impertinent subject 
 to introduce before a congregation, as there was not one man in ten 
 thousand who was not already justified." These and such like state- 
 ments I have heard from gentlemen who have been students in the 
 Uim-ersity. I do not here T, .ell upon them : I come to the con^dera! 
 t^on of docun^ents wluoh I shall quote, and I think when these docu- 
 
 of our Church they will abundantly establish the co.iclusion to which 
 I have come, that the teaching in Trinity College is danc^erous. 
 
 h.Lu T"" '" "'^. P°?«^^'o» five copies of the catechism, which 
 have been for y.:,r.s in the hands of the students of Trunty College 
 and winch ...uluai.s of that University declare contains the^quesUons 
 of the Provost, corrected from his own manuscript, with the\n we4 
 tak.n down carefully f.om his lips. I have collated these five co^es! 
 
 n Ih riV'^'"'"?'"' '. '"'^ "' '""^^ "«"^'"«« ^"y «"« that either ihe^ 
 all had th^jr ong.n from one copy, or that they were reported with 
 wonderfu hdel.ty from the lips of the lecturer. ^ 
 
 thif cat^; llls^n'"!''' 'Veclm,ns of the dat^gerous teaching contained in ^• 
 
 ^»,,.— What is the Hebrew form of the name Mary ? 
 Ans, — Miriam. ^ 
 
 Qms.-—\yUnt does the name signify? 
 ul«*.— Exaltation. 
 
 I 
 
 II. 
 
 
 ■m 
 
3 
 
 "I 
 
 »ii 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 "1» 
 
 ■ ! 
 
The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto. 465 
 
 Ques. — What signification, then, had it as borne by the mother of 
 our Lord ? 
 
 Ans. — The exalted position resulting from her having given birth 
 to the Redeemer of the world. 
 
 Qiies. — Who is the first recorded poissessor of this name ? 
 
 Ans. — Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron. 
 
 Qiies, — Show that she may bo regarded as holding a position under 
 the old dispenKation, ti/pical of that which Mari/ held under the new ? 
 
 Ans. — Miriam was an instrumeut in bringing the Israelites to the 
 promised land, and Mary ivns an imtrutnent in bringing mankind into 
 the Kingdom of Glory {or Heaven). 
 
 Ques. — What was the belief of the early Fathers respecting the 
 virginity of Mary ? 
 
 Ans. — That she continued a virgin ever after. 
 
 Ques. — On what grounds did it rest ? 
 
 Ans. — Some suppose that the mother of such a son could not be 
 mother of another. 
 
 Such teaching as this I regard as a dangerous tampering with a false 
 doctrine of the Church of Rome, directly leading to idolatry. It will, 
 I doubt not, be said by some that Pearson, in his " Exposition of the 
 Creed," teaches the same thing. Even were this the case, still, I would 
 consider the teaching as dangerous in the present time, when there is, 
 especially in the minds of the young, such a hankering after the errors 
 and superstitions of Rome ; but Pearson does not teach that the Virgin 
 Mary had a divinely appointed type under the law; neither does he 
 teach that sshe was an instrument in hrinfjimt manhind into the Kinr/d<mi 
 of Heaven. He says : *' As she, IMiriam, was exalted to be one of 
 those who brought the people of God out of the Egyptian bondage, so 
 was this Mary *\va^^</ to he the mother of that Saviour wlio, through the 
 red sea <»f his blood, had wrought a plenteous redemption for us, of 
 which that was but a type." In the questions and answers of the 
 catechism, the un<lne exaltation of Mary is pushed far beyond what 
 Pearson says upon the subject, and we see the germ of tliat full-blown 
 superstition which, in its most revolting form, meets us in the late 
 letter of the Pope to the Canadian Bishops. 1 fear such teacliina for 
 our young mer). If they are tauglit to believe that Mary is typified in 
 the hiw, they may soon conclude, with Bonaventura, that she is to be 
 found in the Psalms, and tijus he led to look upon the idolatrous honour 
 done to her in the Church of Rome as natural and riiiht. 
 
 On the article " The Communion of SaintV' I find the following 
 questions and answers : — 
 
 Qnes. — With whom have the saints communion ? Prove from 
 Holy Scripture. 
 
 Ans. — With God the Father, tkc, and with God the Son, &c., and 
 with God tlie Holy Ghost, ifec., and with the holy angels, &c., and with 
 all the eaints of the Church Militant, <icc., and with all the saints 
 departed, »fcc. 
 
 Ques, — 'W aerein noes cornmunion with srunts departed consist ? 
 
 AnM, — In union of atfection, involving on our part reverential com- 
 
 \ ! 
 
 wii 
 
i 
 
 
 it 
 
 466 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity Colhgey Toronto, 
 
 mcmoration and imitation, and on their part interest on our hehalt] and 
 
 probable intetremon with God for us. 
 
 I will add liere a letter lately recei%'ed from a clergyman who some 
 years since graduated in Trinity College. "I will now endeavour to 
 state, as well as I can remember, things which struck me as particularly 
 strange in the Provost's doctrinal teaching. I cannot remember his 
 exact" words. I can only give the impression that they left on my n.ind 
 at the time. In lecturing on * The Comni uni<m of Saints/ he certainly 
 gave us to understand, while discoursing on the interest the saints 
 took in our spiiitual welftire, that he thought that they pleaded with 
 God for us. He did on one occasion make use of tijese words, or 
 words very like them, ' This is one of the losses which we sustained,' 
 or 'Things which we lost, at the Heformation,* and I have a very 
 strong impression upon my mind that it was when speaking of prayi^rs 
 for X\\Q dead. He always spohe of baptismal regeneration, as if all 
 divines received tiic doctrine in its strongest sense, without ever hint- 
 ing that there was a far more evangelical view of it taken by many 
 eminent divines in our Church. Wlien young men are thus taught, 
 in the creed we profess to believe, that the saints departed take an 
 interest in our spiritual welfare, and pruhabfif intercede with God for 
 us, the transition is easy to Mioly St. Dominick, pray for us.' Can 
 we regard that man as a sound-hearted member of the Church of 
 Enfflam}, as she 7iow is, who has learned that the same Church, at the 
 Reibrmation, lost certain valuable practice?,^ which, of course, it would 
 be our duty, if possible, to have restored ? " , , « „ 
 
 On the article *• Remission of Sins," in the Creed, I find the follow- 
 ing questions and answers : — ri ^ o 
 
 Qu(^,s. How is remission of sins granted under the Gospel ? 
 
 A/<5.— In baptism past sin is forgiven, whether original or actual, 
 in the case either of infants or aaults duly prepared by faith and 
 
 repentance. 
 
 Que.^,—Uo\v is it granted after baptism ? 
 
 Am. — On repentance. 
 
 Qiies. iti what mode is redemption declared and sealed to the 
 
 penitent ? . . , . , i i . xt 
 
 Aiis.- It is declared in thr oufh'intatuecmolutiutt, and sealed m the 
 
 reception of the Holy Comnnmion. 
 
 Ques. — Prove from Holy Scripture. 
 
 ^|,j,, ««li' we say tliat'we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and 
 
 the tratli is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just 
 to for-ive us our .mus." (1 John i. 8, 9.) "To whom ye forgive any- 
 thin?, I forgive also, for if 1 forgive anything, to whom I forgive it, 
 for your salves forgive I it, in the person of Christ." (2 Cor. ii. 10.) 
 
 Tlie evidt^nt intmtion in ({uoting this passage from the Second 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, is to justify the statement that the remis- 
 sion of sins is declared " m the authoritative abmlutioH " mentioned 
 in the answer to tlie preceding que>tion. Contrast the mode of grunt- 
 ing remission of sins set forth in this catechism with the mode enun- 
 ciated so clearly in the eleventh article of our Church, " We are 
 
The Bishop of Huron and Trinity Coliege, Toronto, 467 
 
 accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ hi; faith, nnd not for own works and deservings ; 
 wherefore, that we are justified h if faith onhj, is a most wholesome doc- 
 
 by the authoritative ahsohttion of tlie Church, is not that which God 
 has revealed in His Word, and which our Church teaches in her formu- 
 laries, her articles, and her homilies. If baptism, t?ie supper of our 
 Lord, and the authoritative absolution, take away ein and seal the 
 pardon of the transgressor, then the Church of Rome is right, and 
 our forefathers were unjustifiable schismatics in separating from her 
 communion. 
 
 Concerning the sacraments, I find in the catechism the following 
 questions and answers : — 
 
 Ques. — Of what sacraments does the catechism treat ? 
 
 Am. — Of two only^ as generally necessary to salvation, baptism and 
 the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Q>its. — What is implied by these restrictions of the term ? 
 
 A IIS. — That the term sacrament may be more widely applied to 
 mean any holy rite. 
 
 Qh€s. — Where, then, lies the error of the Roman Church in making 
 seven sacraments ? 
 
 A IIS. — In drawing no due distinction between the twof/reat sacraments 
 and other holy rifts. 
 
 Ques. — The sacraments are said to be generally necessary to salva- 
 tion ; what is meant by generally ? 
 
 AiiK. — t/ii/eraf/i/ hero means universaUy ; gpnaraUy, i.e. to all men. 
 The sacrani(>nts are necessary, not to God, as instruments whereby He 
 may save us, but to u;?, as God's ajijiointed means if salvation, the 
 chanm/s in 7i'hich his f/rarejlotos to us.— {Land.) 
 
 Quts. — Give an instance of a sacrament or hohj rite ordained by 
 Christ Himself, which is not generally necessary to salvation ? 
 
 Ans. — Orders. 
 
 Ques. — What rites does Rome class with the two 'jreat sacranitnts f 
 
 Ans, — Conlirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme 
 unction. 
 
 Qws. — What is to be observed concerning confirmation ? 
 
 Ans. — Confirmation was in early times part of the sacrament of bap- 
 tism ; it became separated from it in three wa)s, &c. 
 
 Qites, — Wliat concerning orders ? 
 
 Ans. — This rite was appointed by Christ, and tvas accompanied hy 
 an outwanf siffu^ but the grace bestowed was not personal, but official, 
 and there ir« no promise of remission of jsins. 
 
 Qu^s. — What respecting penance ? 
 
 Ans. — In early times those who were subject to ecclesiastical penal- 
 ties were required to confess their sins, and after having been senarated 
 from the Church, were admitted by the laying on of hands. (This 
 rite is not attended by tlm remission of sins.) 
 
 \* ; 
 
 
 n 
 
 :\ 
 
 i'- 
 
 iit 
 
 
 ■'M 
 
; iU. 
 
 R.fl? 
 
 'Mi 
 
 m 
 
 \ I 
 
 \\ 
 
 I 
 
 l!i i 
 
 468 The Bishqp of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto, 
 
 Qu€8, — What respecting matrimony ? 
 
 Jinn, — In this rite there are oniward siffnSf but no spiritual grace, 
 and no promise of remission of sins. 
 
 Is it safe to teach young men thus to regard the so-called sacraments 
 which the Church of Rome has added to the only two appointed by 
 Christ ? and not as our Church plainly teaches concerning them in the 
 Twenty-fifth Article : " Those five commonly-called sacraments are 
 mt 1<* he counted for sacranvnfs of the do^pel, being such as have grown 
 partly cf the corrupt following of the apostles, partly are states of life 
 allowed in the Scriptures, but yH have not Uhe nnture of mcramcnts, with 
 baptism and the Lord's Sup}>eryfor that they have not any risihfe si^n or 
 ceremony ordained of God.'' Our Church does not speak of two great 
 sacraments, leaving us to infer that tiiere arc lesser sacraments, and 
 that the Church of Rome, in adding to the sacraments appointed by 
 Christ, has only erred in not making a " due distinction " between the 
 two greater sacraments and other holy rites or sacraments. Neither 
 does our Church trifle with her members by using the word " gene- 
 rally " when she intended to express " universally." When we add to 
 this, that those young men who are thus taught in the first year of 
 th<;ir University course to toy with the sacraments of the Church of 
 Rome, are further instructed that the recipient of the bread and wine 
 in the sa^rramcnt of the Lord's Supper partakes of the "glorified 
 humanity" of the Son of God, I think it will be .acknowledged that 
 the teaching is dangerous in a very high degree. Moreover, in this 
 catechism, our Lord's words, recorded in the sixth chapter of St. Jolm's 
 Gospel, are repeatedly quoted, as spoken concerning the sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper, as in the following answers : — 
 
 Qtir<i, — Prove from Holy Scripture that the Lord's Supper is gene- 
 rally n<;ces^ary ? 
 
 Jnn. — " Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye 
 have no Hie iu you." (John vj. v>3.) 
 
 (Jves. — What words of our Lord show this ? 
 
 jlns. — Our Lord speaks of the spiritual benefits which should cer- 
 tainly flow from eatin/r his flesh and blood, of which benefits the wicked 
 cannot be thought to partake : ** Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh 
 my blood, hath eternal life, and I will rai?e him up at the last day. 
 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in Me, and I 
 in him." (John vi. ul, ikc.) 
 
 Ques, — Prove from Holy Scripinre that the Holy Eucharist m»tain» 
 the spiritual life imparted hy baptism f 
 
 Ans. — " Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you. 
 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink liis blood, you 
 have no life in you." (John vl. 53.) 
 
 In these questions and answers, taken from ditFerent parts of the 
 catechism, the student is unhesitatingly taught to interpret the words 
 of our Lord, in the sixth of Juim, as spoken concerning the sacrament 
 of the Lord's Supper. Commentators of the CInirch of England since 
 the Reformation, and souic Roman Catholic divine?, Imve interpreted 
 
ito. 
 
 lal grace, 
 
 acraments 
 lointed by 
 lem in the 
 ments are 
 ive grown 
 tes of life 
 icnts, with 
 hif sif/ti or 
 * two great 
 lents, and 
 ointeil by 
 tween the 
 Neither 
 I'd "pcne- 
 we add to 
 'St year of 
 Church of 
 and wine 
 " Klorifuid 
 ^clgod that 
 er, in this 
 St. Jol»n*8 
 jrament of 
 
 ;r 13 gene- 
 
 unto you, 
 \ blood, ye 
 
 hould ccr- 
 the wicked 
 (1 diinketh 
 1 la?t day. 
 Me, and I 
 
 l<ti miglaim 
 
 ' unto you, 
 blood, you 
 
 i»rt9 of the 
 
 the words 
 
 sacrament 
 
 jhind since 
 
 interpreted 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and DrinUy College, Toronto, 469 
 
 the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, as \\ti\\n<* no reference whtitflo- 
 ever to the Lord's Supper, and one of the latter has asserted that " the 
 Universal Cliurcli has understood this passage, ever since its promul- 
 gation, to mean spiritual eating and drinking by a living faith." 
 
 One of our most eminent reformer.«<, when combating the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation, thus expressed luniself concerning thin passage : 
 " Christ in that pluc a of John spake not of the material and sacramental 
 bread, nor of the sacramental eating (for that was spoken two or three 
 years before the sacrament was first ordained), but he spake of spiritual 
 bread, many times repeating, < I am the bread of life wliicU came down 
 from heaven,* and of spiritual eating by faith, after which sort He was 
 at the same present tin»e eatingof as many as believed on Iiim,altliough 
 the sacrament was not at that time made and instituted. And there- 
 fore He said, * Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and died ; but 
 he that eateth this bread shall live for ever,* Therefore, this place of 
 St. John can in no wise be understood of the sacramental bread, whicli 
 neither came from heaven, neither giveth life to all that eat. Nor of 
 such bread could Christ have presently said, * This is my flesh,' except 
 they will say, that Clirist did then consecrate so many years before the 
 institution of His holy supper." — Craniiitr. 
 
 I cannot, therefore, think it sound divinity or good Protestantism to 
 teach thf.t in the sixth chapter of St. John, our Lord refers to the 
 oral reception of the elements in the sacrament, and not to the spiritnal 
 participation of his body ond blood, b^ faith; such Veaching I must con- 
 sider " dangerous in the extreme." 
 
 I have thus laid before you, from aiitlientic souruco, some of the 
 teaching to which I object. The impressions conveyed to my mind 
 by the examination of graduates of the University, I cannot of course 
 convey to yours. The mode ado{)ted by me to ascertain 'the character 
 and effects of the teaching in Trinity College, is that which common 
 sense dictated, and which my position required me [to adopt, namely, 
 to examine the pupils. It would be quite impossible to write all I 
 have learned in this way, but the result has been a deep-seated con- 
 viction that a large portion of tares is mixed ll'.i the seed sown in 
 the minds of the young men educated in the in. "itution. In some I 
 know, these tares have not taken root, but this is to be attributed to 
 the fact, that their minds were pre«occupied by the good seed which 
 had been previously sown by the care of their parents or pastors. 
 Whether tliis has always been suihcient to prevent the growth of the 
 tares, I cannot say. 
 
 Before I conclude this letter, which is the last I shall address to you 
 on this subject, I would briefly advert to one or two passages in my 
 late pastoral. 
 
 The resolutions of the committee, which were said to have been 
 transmitted to me, were never received ; they never came into my 
 hands. 
 
 When the statute, which has been the subject of discussion, was 
 read at the council, I drongly objected to it, stating at the same time, that 
 if we could always depend ou having a Chancellor like the gentleman 
 
 y 
 
 1' 
 
Pll 
 
 470 The Jishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto, 
 
 who now so worthily occupies that position, there could be no ohj«ction 
 to leave some discretionary power with liirn, as all knew that he wouUl 
 act wisely and jtjstly, but that suc!> tliscrctii^n could not be safely in- 
 trusted to every person who might hereafter be elected Chancellor of 
 tho University. 
 
 With reference to my rensons for not nppearinj^ at the meetings of 
 the corporation, they arc stated by me in luy letter to the Bishop of 
 Toronto, and occupy a paragraph of that letter. 
 
 It 19 very unfortunate that when tlie corporation of Trinity College 
 undertook to state from my letter the grounds on which J declined to 
 take my place at the corporation, they sliould have selected part of a 
 sentence in the middle of this paragraph, and overlr)oked those portions 
 of the same para;zrapU which immediately pree'de and fol' - that part 
 of a sentence which tliey selected. The letter i;* now before the pupils, 
 and any one who will take the trouble to analyse the paragraph referred 
 to will find that there are three grounds stated for my relusal to attend 
 the corporation of Trinity College. Tlie first and chief reason which 
 Iquoto in my pastoral is contained in the wordt*, " as I ccDniot in my soul 
 approve of the theoJotjical teaching of Trinity Vol/qfe, I Miei'ctha* my 
 appearing to sandiott thiii teavhing woiihf he a positivf; evxL" Tlie second 
 is in the following words : " Wtre I to go to the t'onncif, as you say 
 would he the U'ii^tr atitf wore honourahh' conme, ami enter My protest 
 against the teaching vhich I condeniUf no g<»>d remit vvin/d follow (as I 
 could not expect to etfect a change in the teaching of the University).*' 
 The words which I have included between brackc'ts are the only por- 
 tion of the paragraph noticed by the corporation, and they state this 
 as the ground of my refusal to attend the meeting of the council, 
 whereas these words constitute an inferior member of my sentence, 
 and do not express my reason for not attending the meetings of 
 the council. The third reason assigned in the paragraph is : " And 
 the melancholy picture of r, house divided against itself would 
 be presented ; to avoid thiti I have htrebfore ht}>t alonffntM the Cniver- 
 sity^ and I am still satisfied in my own mind, that «t is better for mo 
 to act than to introduce discussion into the council, and thus to render 
 patent the diflerences whitdt unhappily exist among us." AVith tliese 
 three reasons thus plainly before them, the corporation of Trinity 
 College selects an inferior member of a sentence in the middle of the 
 paragraph, and asserts that in that part of a sentence, without reference 
 to the context, is contained the ground stated by me for refusing to 
 comply with the request of the Bishop of Toronto to take my place at 
 the council. 
 
 This letter was written as a "private communication to the Bishop 
 of Toronto," but it is evident it was laid before the corporation, as it is 
 referred to in their document of the 29th of June. In that letter, 
 while I declined to take my place at the council (for the three reason? 
 assigned), which was the thing the Bishop ttrged me to do, I stated in the 
 most emphatic way, *' / cannot in my soul approve of the theological teach- 
 ing of Trinity College,^ and I hoped and expected that his Lordship 
 would have asked me to particularize in what the teaching consisted ; 
 
ito. 
 
 y olijectjon 
 t lie wuuUl 
 ! safely in- 
 ivnutiUur of 
 
 neotings of 
 iiishop of 
 
 Ity College 
 lediiied to 
 I part of a 
 se portions 
 - tluit part 
 th« pupils, 
 ill reierred 
 il to attend 
 isoii which 
 in my soul 
 eve tho* my 
 riie second 
 OS you say 
 lay protest 
 *^()//o}(' (as I 
 iivorsity)-*' 
 i only por- 
 y state this 
 he council, 
 y sentence, 
 eetinc!;s of 
 is: "And 
 <elf would 
 the I'luret'- 
 Iter for mo 
 s to render 
 ^Vith tliese 
 of Trinity 
 [Idle of the 
 It reference 
 refusing to 
 ay place at 
 
 the Bishop 
 ion, as it is 
 tliat letter, 
 ree reason? 
 tated id the 
 tc/ical teach' 
 i Lordship 
 consisted ; 
 
 to ray regret and surprise, he did not do so, and therefore I could not 
 arrive at any other conclusion than that which I Iiave stated in my 
 
 pastoral. "^ 
 
 But discussions on these minor points are unimportant, and are of 
 no real interest to the public. The teaching of Trinitv College is 
 that which concerns the community. From what I ha\e written 
 above, all may judge of this for themselves. The documentary 
 evidence which I have adduced is but a small part of the infonnation 
 which I have obtained in my examination of the graduates of the 
 University. Some, perhaps, may not see the danger I apprehend, and 
 may think it quite safe to send their sons to the Institution ; but I 
 feel assured that many will concur in opinion with me, that it is not 
 wise or safe to subject young and inexperienced minds to such teach- 
 ing, even though great names may be quoted in favour of it. 
 
 In conclusion, J would say, that as no one can now misunderstand my 
 attendance at the council of Trinity Ccllege, and as "the melancholy 
 picture" which I wished to avoid has been made patent to all, I shall * 
 take into consideration the expediency of appointing five gentlemen as 
 members of the corporation, and of endeavouring, in my jdace there, 
 to effect those changes in the institutiou which will tender it such, 
 that I may be able conscientiously to recommend it to others, and 
 avail myself of it for the benefit of my diocese. I remain, my reverend 
 brethren and brethren, your faithful friend and brother in the faith, 
 A.g.2M8«o. BENJ. HURON. 
 
 V 1 
 
 im 
 
^ 
 
 — ^ — • ^ 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 to 
 W 
 
 
 for 
 
 
 pu 
 
 
 on, 
 
 
 so 
 
 
 Sir 
 
 
 P. 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 
 
 be* 
 
 COI 
 
 • ■ 
 
 poi 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 UK 
 
 mi 
 
 I ii 
 
 I! l 
 
*.••!• 
 
 THE BISHOP OF HUIION AND TRINITY COLLEGE 
 
 TORONTO. . * 
 
 {Continued /torn Ike. 18C0, p. 471.) 
 
 \Vk suppose that our r.-ad.rs have had enouj^h of these documents 
 to enul) e tluMU to tor.n their own opinions on the im rits of the case 
 We httl.. thou-ht wh«n we printed, in the OJn.ual Church ChroHlcIe 
 for Septrmher h.sr, tha d.ar^re brought hy tlie IJishop a;,'ainst the 
 ColU-c, that the controversy wouhl continne so h)ng. The Provost 
 pubLshet a hmer, to which, we refined in September (p. 3.W). which 
 onght to have been cor.chisive, an.l which, we ...ppose, would have been 
 so With any other Prelate in our conununion than iJishop Cronyn. 
 Sin<.e thi iollow.n- hotter was in type, we have seen another from the 
 I royost, which 18 ineant as a postscript, and which we intend to print 
 in February, atul then we hope to have done with t!.e matter. Thb 
 l^anadian correspondent of tl»e dmnllan, of December 1? 7 18G0 says •— - 
 
 *• Su.ee the Provost'^ overwhehuing rejoinders, lii^^hop Cronyn has 
 been sil. nt,--no apologies or excuses have been offered. He stands 
 convicted of hav.n- ma.le groundless charges against tJie most im- 
 portau Church Institution in the Canada., and yet he makes no ,vnu 
 NVere he, however, to devote all the remniuder of his days to nuikfn- 
 atonement for his reckless conduct, h. . ouid not undo one-half th? 
 mischiet he has done We recommend the letter in the Guardian to 
 the notice of our readers. 
 
 At a well-attendeil meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Colle<re. 
 held on 1 hursday, September 27rh, 1860, the Lord Bishop of Toronto 
 made the lollowing communication to the meetin«» :— 
 
 " I beg leave to lay on the table a letter which i have received 
 
 \\ 
 
 *,- . 
 
 W«i 
 
 ■ f- «f* I 
 
Ml 
 
 « 
 
 ill 
 
 
 
 |-[ 
 
 'M 
 
 I 
 
ation 
 ns 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College^ Toronto. 11) 
 
 from the Reverend the Trovost of Trinity CuHege, in vindicatio 
 of his religious teticliing in the College from an attack which hi 
 been made upon it by the Bishop of Huron, and also the printed 
 letter upon it by the Bishop of Huron to the Executive Committee of 
 his Diocese, in wliich that attack is continued. I lay these paf)er3 
 before tlie Council, not doubting that it will appear to them on their 
 consideration, tliat the Provost, in regard to those things which he 
 admits that he has taugiit, has successfully defended his doctrine by 
 reference to Holy Scri{)ture, and the Book of Common Prayer, and t« 
 those venerated Divines, whose writings are of the highest authority 
 in our Church." 
 
 The Bishop tiien calleJi upon the Provost to read the following letter: 
 
 My Loud,— I have prepared, in reply to the letter addressed by the 
 Lor<l Bishop of Huron to the Executive Committee of his Synod, a 
 inll statement of my teaching on the points objected to by his Lord- 
 ship, together with authorities from approved writers of the Church 
 of England ; but independent of this more elaborate reply, I think it 
 necessary to give a brief answer to some of the comments of the 
 Bishop on the manner, matter, and tmdenc}/ of that teaching. As 
 respects the manner, I can add but little to the statement vvhich I 
 made in my letter of the 28th of July, which was published in the 
 diiily papers, and which I here transcribe. 
 
 *' It is my duty to lecture the students of the first year on the Cate- 
 chism of the Church of England. For this purpose I have compiled 
 a manuscript, which I read and explain to the class. The students are 
 ex[)ected to take notes of the lecture and to answer questions on the 
 next day, of attendance. In order to save time and to observe due 
 method in my questioning, I have i)repared for my own use a book 
 of questions, omitting or adding questions at my discretion, when I 
 use it.^ The only written result of my lectures which I require or 
 wish, is a summary of them in the note-books of the students. The 
 contents of these books I never see, nor can I hold myself responsible 
 for them. I am, however, given to understand that it is the practice 
 of some of the students to write down the questions which i\re 
 addi-essod to them, and to reduce their notes into the form of answers 
 to these qu(!Stions. This practice I disapprove, and it is well known 
 that I do not consider it to be a legitimate mode of registering the 
 information given in the lectures. Some years ago I consented, more 
 than once, to place my book of questions in the hands of students, on 
 th(;ir plea that it would assist them to complete or correct their notes. 
 I know also that the note-books have passed from hand to hand in the 
 College, but so far from encouraging this I have urged young men to 
 trust, if not exclusively, at all events mainly, to their own recollection 
 and record of wliat they hear. JNFy wish is further, that in replying 
 to my questions, the students should give, in their own language, for the 
 most part, the substance of what they have been laught. Of course there 
 are instances in which substantial accuracy can be secured only by keep- 
 ing close to the exact terms in which the instruction was conveyed. 
 
 I beg, therefore, to observe that no manuscript known by the name 
 
 ^ 
 
 M 
 
 >?'! 
 
 c2 
 

 20 The Bishop of Huron and Tfimty Colleye, Toronto, 
 
 of * The Provost's Catechism,* or by any other name, i« placed in tlie 
 hands of amj student ciitenng the Univtrsity, far less is any student 
 
 expected to leant it." 
 
 Tlia statement vvhicli I here made is fully borne out by one cf the 
 Bisiicp's own authorities. He sayi, "I do not tliink the Provost has 
 ever given both questions and answers to any student to copy, but I 
 heard when I was at College tliat he lent his questions on one occasion, 
 and that a copy was taken of them. Of course, as soon as the students 
 had a copy of tne questions wliich were to be put to them, they were 
 able to form proper answers from the notes which they had taken 
 down from the last or preceding lecture. 1 don't remember of hearing 
 of any copy called * The Provost's Catechism.* I have heard of the 
 * Provost's questions,' meaning those questions which the Provost 
 asks. I h ve heard that the Provost has been asked to publish a 
 catechism, in order that the students might be saved the trouble of 
 writing out co[)ies for themselves." It may, however, be well that I 
 should^now do publicly, what I should long ago have been most ready 
 and willing to do privately, give answers of my own to tic series of 
 questions which the Bisliop of Huron has addressed to his informants. 
 This then I proceed to do. 
 
 Ques. L— Was the attendance on the lectures on catechism com- 
 pulsory ? 
 
 ^„5.-^Undoubtedly it was, and no hint has been thrown out that it 
 
 was not so. * ; 
 
 Ques. 2 — Did the Provost at each lecture dictate questions and 
 answers from liis own manuscript ? 
 
 Ans, — Certainly not. I put questions to the students at. the open- 
 ing of each lecture, on the subject of tl»e preceding lecture, to be 
 answered by them vivd voce. Consequently, the statement that ques- 
 tions were read at the first lecture is absolutely untrue. 
 
 Ques, 3.— Did the students write b-th questions and answers as he 
 dictated them ? 
 
 jbis. — Since neither'questions nor answers were dictated, they could 
 not be written by the students. 
 
 Ques, 4.— Were the students expected on the next lecture day to 
 read the answers as the Provost had dictated them ? 
 
 Ans. — As the answers had neither been dictated nor written down, 
 they could not be read. 
 
 Qufs, %, — Did you ever know the Provost to lend hia manuscript to 
 a student to correct his notes taken down at lecture ? 
 
 Ans. — I have no recollection whatever of having lent my manuscrip' , 
 nor is the correctness of my recollection in this particular disputed by 
 the informants of the Bishop of Huron, but I did lend a book con- 
 taining my questions. It is particularly to be noticed that these 
 questions have no answers annexed. 
 
 Ques. 6. — Are there any copies of the manuscript thus corrected 
 handed down from class to class, and is the book familiarly known 
 among the students as ** The Provost's Catechism ?'* 
 
 Ans:-^1 believe that a manuscript containing my questions, with 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
to* 
 
 id in the 
 r studunt 
 
 ne cf the 
 
 jvoot has 
 py, but I 
 occasion, 
 ; students 
 hey were 
 mil taken 
 ►f hearing 
 lid of the 
 ; Provost 
 publish a 
 trouble of 
 /ell that I 
 lost rcaily 
 B scries of 
 iformunts. 
 
 [asm com- 
 
 out that it 
 
 sttons and 
 
 ;.the open- 
 are, to be 
 that tjucs- 
 
 wers as he 
 
 they could 
 
 ;ure day to 
 
 Itten down, 
 
 nuscript to 
 
 nanuscrip' , 
 lisputed by 
 book con- 
 that these 
 
 3 corrected 
 u'ly known 
 
 itions, with 
 
 i 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity College, Toronto, 21 
 
 answers framed from tho notes of my lecturos, was compiled, soon 
 after the opening < f the College, without authority, by one of the 
 students, and lias been rei)eatedly copied ; but I had no knowledge of 
 the existence of s'lch a book, until I was informed of it in July last 
 by Dr. Bovell, who received his information from the Bishop of 
 Huron. I have never seen such a book, and know of its exi:stence 
 only by report. 
 
 Ques. 7. — Did the Provost ever express his disapproval of the use 
 of thesj note-books ? 
 
 Ans.^l did frequently express disapproval of the servile use of 
 the note-books of otliers, conceiving, hov/ever, that they contained 
 merely an analysis of my lectures. Had I known what these note- 
 books are said to contain, my disapproval would have been expressed 
 more strongly; and when I lent my questions, which I have not done 
 for some years, I cautioned students :ot to avail themselves of them 
 for the purpose of reducing my lecture to a catechetical form. 
 
 Qiu's. 8. — Are you aware whether a proposition to publish the 
 manuscript was ever made by any of the students, and what was the 
 Provost's reason ft . disapproving of its publication? 
 
 Ans, — 1 was never asked to publish my manuscript on the catechism. 
 
 These facts I consider to be of great importance. 1st. — So far as 
 they relate to the mode of teaching, which, had it been conducted by 
 dictated questions and answers, 1 should with the Bishop of Huron 
 regard as very objectionable, and without precedent at home. 2d. Be- 
 cause the fact that answers to the qu-^stions were not dictated, mate- 
 rially afiects the authority of the manuscriiits from which the Bishop 
 of Huron derives bis information. It should be remembered that at 
 the time at which the Bishop issued his first pastoral of the 21st July, 
 I was in utter ignorance of the contents of these maiiuscripts, and 
 consequently most anxious not to be held in any way responsible fop 
 them ; and it must be evident to any reasonable man that 1 cannot 
 justly be held answerable for the tern^s in which young men, little 
 versed in theology, have thought fit to give expression to my teaching. 
 ^ In the next paragraph of the Bishop's hitter he speaks of informa- 
 tion derived by his Lordship from candidates for holy orders, respect- 
 ing my opinions as expressed in my lectures or in private conversa- 
 tion. I must indignantly protest against the production of any .such 
 hearsay evidence ; and the special instau'^es brought forward by the 
 Bishop, respecting "the losses sustained at the Reformation." and 
 "the impertinence of preaching on the doctrine of justification," I 
 meet with a flat denial of their truth. In the same way I meet the 
 letter of a clergyman quoted by the Bishop, in which mention is made 
 of prayers for the dead, — a practice against which every Theological 
 student of the College must know that 1 have repeatedly and strongly 
 urged every argument both from Scripture and from reason. 
 
 To proceed to the Bishop's specific objections. 1st. — Concerning 
 the Virgin Mary. The Bishop says, " Such teaching I regard as a 
 dnngrrous tampering with u i'alse doctrine of the Church of Kome, 
 directly leading to idolatry," I positively deny that my real teaching 
 

 tut 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 . i 
 
 ! i 
 
 22 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity Collc(/e, Toronto, 
 
 U in any degree open to this censure, nnd I most confidently appeal 
 to the Theological stiuh-nts g(Mierally, in proof of the -issertiim that I 
 have ever stron<ily coiulomned those grievous errors of tlie Churcli of 
 Rome which assign to the Blessed Virgin any other place, in the 
 economy of human redemption, than that of a humble yet most 
 honoured instrument in tlie hand of llifu who made her thus instru- 
 mental by causing h«.'r to be the mother of the Lord. In my lectures 
 on the articles, I have argued ngainst the dogma of the Immaculate 
 Conception from our Lord's V'ords, " Yea rather, blessed are they 
 that hear the word of God and heep it," by showing that, if that 
 dor^ma were true, then J/aiy voufd enjot/ an ejrki.<it'f .^j'intual pnn- 
 leae, to which the hnir'mg and Iceeping of the word of God could advance 
 no other human he'uuj. I have often said that ihe one error of Mariolatry 
 constituted, in my opinion, an impassable gulf between the Church of 
 
 Home and our own. ^ , . ^ • 
 
 The answer which the Bishop of Huron cites on this subject is, 
 •• Miriam was an instrument in bringing the Israelites into the pro- 
 mised land, and Hary was an instrument in bringing mankind into 
 the kingdom of glory (or heaven)." For this answer, as being in- 
 correct,'! am in no way responsible, and I object to it altogether, both 
 in respect of Miriam and in respect of Mary. I consider the latter 
 clause to be open to very dangerous construction, as it might be un- 
 understood to imply some past or permanent ministry of tlie Bles:*ed 
 Viro-in tending immediately to the salvation of mankind. 
 
 In explanarion of my own view, 1 would say that -1 claim Bishop 
 Pearson as a recognised authority in our Ciuireh, and his book on the 
 creed as an unexceptionable text-book. Tearson tlien says : "As !*he 
 (Miriam) was exalted to be one of them who brought tlnj people of 
 God out of the Egyptian bondage, so was this Mary «^xalted to become 
 the mother of that Saviour, wlu», through the lied Sea of His blood, 
 hath wrought a plenteous redemption for us, of which tliat was but a 
 type." In°my manuscript I find the following words : " The sister of 
 Moses and Aaron, coupled with them by the prophets as a joint leader 
 of Israel from Egypt (IMicah vi. 4), and thus answering, in^ some 
 typical respect, to the place which jNIary bore instrumcntally in the 
 means of human redemi)tion ." These words are taken from LV. IVIiirs 
 analysis of Pearson, and are taken advisedly, as expressing distinctly 
 and guardedly the Bishop's meaning. For these words only, then, 
 can 1 consent to be responsible, nor can I suppose that any candid 
 person would object to them as not correctly repretenting the meaning 
 of the original author. i • i 
 
 I trace the typical resemblance of which Pear?on speaks only in the 
 earlier recorded events of Miriam's life, when, watching the infant de- 
 liverer "to see what would become of the child," she occupies in 
 respect of him a position analogous to that of I^lary as the guardian 
 of our Lonl's infancy ; and again, when leading the song of triumph 
 at tlie Red Se;?, she, celebrated the beginning of God's temporal deliver- 
 ance, as Mary celebrated, in her Eucharistic Hymn, the beginning of 
 His great redemption. 
 
 I 
 
0. 
 
 The Bishop of Huron and Trinity Coller/e, Toronto. !i3 
 
 \y appeal 
 )n that I 
 hurch of 
 J, in the 
 ret most 
 s instru* 
 ' lectures 
 niaculiite 
 are they 
 \j if tliiit 
 Kit priii- 
 I advance 
 [jiriolati-y 
 J hurch of 
 
 abject is, 
 > tlie pro* 
 kind into 
 being in- 
 t}ier, both 
 tlic hitter 
 ht be uit- 
 »e Bles:*ed 
 
 m Bishop 
 »()k on the 
 ; " A(? }*he 
 people of 
 to become 
 His blood, 
 was but a 
 le sister of 
 )int leader 
 , in some 
 illy in the 
 LV. IVIiirs 
 distinctly 
 only, then, 
 \}\y candid 
 e meaning 
 
 jnly in the 
 1 infant de- 
 iccupios in 
 e guardian 
 ^f triumph 
 ral deljver- 
 ginning of 
 
 The Bishop next quotes from the manuscript he has used, yet with- 
 out any special remark, two questions and answers relating to th« 
 belief of the early Church respecting the perpetual vir<;in'ty of the 
 mother of our Lord. In my manuscript 1 find only a reference to a 
 passage in Bishop Pearson, which I liere transcribe : " We believe the 
 mother of our Lord to have been not only before and after Il's nativity, 
 but also for ever, the most immiiculate and blessed Virgin ;'* and again, 
 *' the peculiar eminency and unparalleled privilege of that mother, the 
 special honour and reverence due unto that Son, and ever paid by her, 
 the regard of that Holy Ghost who came upon her, and tlie power of 
 tl : Highest which overshadowed her, the singular goodness and piety 
 •^':;ph to whom she was espousc^d, have persuaded tlie Church of 
 Gofj, ■< all ages to believe that she still continued in the same virginity, 
 ■nn<' lerefure is to be acknowledged as the ever Virgin Mary." ' 
 
 i.0 tliis testimony of Bishop Bearson may be added those of Arch- 
 bishop C'ranmer, Bishop Latimer, Bishop Hooper, Bishop Jewel, J>r. 
 Hammond, Bishop liull, Bishop Beverldge, Bishop Wilson, and Bishop 
 Z. Pearce, which I shall give in full in my longer letter ; some of 
 these writers maintain the perpetual virginity as a reasonable and 
 pious opinion, while others contend that it is a necessary doctiine 
 proved by Holy Scripture. I should be disposed to take the jrround 
 occupied by the former, and I trust that their authority, together with 
 that of those who adopt the stricter view of the matter, will protect 
 me from the charge of dangerous heresy or disgusting folly. 
 
 Respecting the Bishop's objection, under the heads of " tlje inter- 
 cession of saints," I would again confidently appeal to the students of 
 the College as to the character of my teaching, and I must indignantly 
 deny the Bishop of Huron's iusinuaiion as to its tendency. No man 
 can be more heartily convinced than 1 am of the presumptuous impiety 
 of the practice of the •* invocation of saints" 
 
 To the question and answer quoted by the Bishop I have no objec- 
 tion to urge, as my manuscript contains the words "and probable 
 intercession with God for us," though not in the form of question or 
 answer. I will only notice that the introduction of the word •* pro- 
 bable " shows that prayer on the part of the departed for tiie Church 
 on earth is not inculcated as a necessary doctrine, proved by Holy 
 Scripture, but is spoken of only as a pious opinion, not contrary to it. 
 
 In reply to the Bishop's objection, I have to state that the great 
 writers of our Church in controversy with Kome^ have always carefully 
 distinguished between the iwayers of saints departed for its and o«r 
 prai/ing to them. The latter they justly denounce as a presumptuous atid 
 stiperstitious practice, and as an invasion of the prerogative of Almighty 
 God ; the former they allow to be a probable and reasonable belief. 
 They distinguish ulso between f/ener<(l and pafticular intercession, 
 showing that the former implies no present hwwlethje of our condition 
 on the part of saints departed, but merely a n-co/lection of earthly 
 friends. When I sptak of the soiuts drp'trtnt, I me.an "the spirits of 
 
 ^ 
 
 5) 
 
 St !'< 
 
 ' Vvi 
 
 » Pearson on the Creed, vol. i. p. 272, Oxford, 18J0. 
 
ill 
 
 Is 
 
 Jllllj 
 
 If! 
 
 21 Tlie Bishop of Huron and Trinity CofUf/Cy Toronto, 
 
 just mon made perfect;" not assuming that it h possible tlmt we 
 sliouM hfivc any certain knowledge of the iiulividuals who constitute 
 their body, whieh knowledge must be assumed by those who approve 
 or practise the " invocation of saints.'* 
 
 I <;an hy no means admit that the transition ia easy, from t!»e belief 
 Vi ; i saints departed olFer general intercession for the Church on earth, 
 to the use of the invocation "Holy 8t. Doniiniek, piay for us ;" and 
 I consider the admission tiiat such a transition is easy most perilous to 
 tlie true faith. 1 subjoin ai» extract Irom a letter addressed by Bishop 
 llidley to the martyr Bradford, shortly after liis condenmation : 
 " Brother Bradford, so long as I shall understand thou art in thy 
 journey, by God's grace, 1 shall call upon our heavenly Father for 
 Christ's sake to set thee safely home, and then, good brother, speak 
 you and pray for the renniant which are to sutler for Christ's sake, 
 according to that thou then shalt know more clearly."^ If Bishop 
 Kidley is to be accounted a dangerous heretic for the adoption of this 
 language, I am well content to share his disgrace. 
 
 Respecting the remission of sins I appeal to Bishop Pearson ; Ins 
 words arc : — 
 
 ** And therefore tlie Church of God, in which remission of sin is 
 preached, doth not only promi.-e it at iirst by the laver of regenera- 
 tion, but afterwards also, upon the virtue of repentance; and to deny 
 the Church this power of absolution is the Iieresy of Novatian." 
 
 In these words the writer claims for the Church the power of 
 absolving i\ni p* nitent^ not t/ie j>otrer of absolvirKj ani/ tnnisf/rcssor what- 
 ever, as the Bishop of Huron implies?. Dr. Mill, in his analysis, adds 
 the means whicli the Church emi)loys in the exercise of this [)ower, 
 and speaks of remission as declared in the authoritative ahwhttioHS 
 (not absolution) pronounced by the ministers of the Church, and sealed 
 in the reception of the Holy Communion. The whole weight of the 
 Bisliop of Huron's objection lies in the suppression of the word 
 "penitent." True repentance, whieh cannot exist apart from true 
 faith in Christ, is presup])osed, as the indispensable qualification of 
 the recipient of the pardon, which God is then asserted to bestow in 
 the Ciiurch, this, the unihoritativef yet simply ministerial, absolution of 
 the minister, which takes cftect, not at ins, the minister .s pleasure, but 
 according to the genuineness of the repentance of those to whom it is 
 administered. In special cases, of rare occurrence, the minister is 
 indeed called upon to pi'onounce an absolution, which is judicial as 
 well as ministerial ; yet here, again, the absolution is contingent, and 
 ca?mot take effect except ui)on those who tnd// ivpent and believe. 
 
 Respecting the Sacraments, as his Lordship has recognised tlie 
 Homilies as one of the authoritative formularies of our Church, I would 
 submit that every detail of my teaching to which his Lordship objects 
 is to be found in the Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments. 
 I shall enter into this matter at n»uch greater length in a letter which 
 I am about to publish, and will liere merely observe that, in speaking 
 
 * See vol. iii. p. 370 of Foxe'a Acts and Monuments, folio, London, HSh 
 
The Bishop of Huron and Trinity CoUcr/ef Toronto, 25 
 
 that we 
 
 institute 
 appi'ove 
 
 lie belief 
 )n eurtli, 
 3 ; " and 
 rilous to 
 y liisliop 
 imation : 
 t iu thy 
 ither for 
 LT, speak 
 it's sake, 
 {' IJishop 
 n of this 
 
 son ; his 
 
 of sin is 
 
 •egencra* 
 I to deny 
 n." 
 
 )ower of 
 isor what- 
 /■ftis, adds 
 s [)ower, 
 bmliftioHS 
 nd sealed 
 [jt of the 
 :he word 
 10 in true 
 cation of 
 }e?tow in 
 )lution of 
 .sure, hut 
 hoin it is 
 inister is 
 idieiul as 
 [;ent, and 
 lieve. 
 :}ised the 
 , I would 
 ip objects 
 :raments. 
 ;er which 
 
 speakin 
 
 of penance, matrimony, ♦tc, it was my purpose to indicate Bome one or 
 more points in which each of the live so'called sacraments of the Church 
 of Home falls short of the definition of a sacrament j2;iven in the 
 Catechism of the Church of England, It being an undoubted historical 
 fa : that the word **sacrament" was applied in early times, not to seven 
 irites or holy things, but to things innumerable of such nature, it is 
 »nost important not to rest the pre-eminence of the two great sacra- 
 ments of Christ upon a vain attempt to restrict to tliem a term of 
 human invention not found in Holy Scripture, but on their distinctive 
 dignity as being ordained by Christ Himself, and as being the only 
 outward signs in the use of which our spiritual life is communicated 
 and sustained. 
 
 In order, however, to maintain as far as possible a verbal distinction 
 between the two great sacraments and other holy rites — a distinction 
 which luis not been made by the appropriation to those sacraments of 
 a distinctive name — I should in practice invariably use the word 
 "sacrament" of baptism and the Lord's Supper on///, and I should, 
 reprove any young man under my care for applying it to any other 
 rite. So far am I from teaching the students of Trinity College to 
 "toy" with the so-called sacraments of the Cliurch of Kome, 
 
 The Bishop also comi)lains that the words " generally necessary to 
 salvation," are thus explained in the manuscript which he has used; 
 "generally here means universally, generally, i.e. to all men.*' In my 
 manuscript 1 find these words "generally ^lecv.ssrtr//, not to God, as 
 instruments whereby he is to save, but to us, as Goi^s appointed 
 means of salvation, necessary gcnemlbjf that is, to all men." I do not 
 use the word *' universally," nn' 1 err in my interpretation of the 
 word "generally," I err with Dr. liummond, Bishop Nicholson, Bishop 
 Beveridge, Bishop Wilson, and Dr. JSicholls, as I shall show by 
 quotations in my longer leiter. I have been accustomed also to show 
 how this general necessity is limited, by reference to the language used 
 respecting the sacrament of baptism in the service for the baptism of 
 adul*", " whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this sacra- 
 ment, where it may he had" If this explanation of the word 
 "generally" be not satisfactory, I should be glad to learn what inter- 
 pretation of the term will meet at once the theory of the objector and 
 the re(iuirement8 of common sense. 
 
 There are but two other points in the Bishop of Huron's letter now 
 remaining to be considered. On these I must touch very briefly, 
 reserving the more full reply to them for my longer letter. They are 
 these, — the Bishop's objection to Mr. Proclor's statement that every 
 faithful recipient (not the reci/neiit as the Bishop states) of the bread 
 an<l wine in the Lord's Supper partakes of the glorified humanity of 
 the Son of God, and his Lordship's objection to my reference to St. 
 John vi. 53, to prove the necessity of the Lord's Supper. In reply to 
 the former object, I am prepared to show that Mr. Proctor's teaching 
 is fully confirmed by great divines of our Church, and amor'.g the rest 
 by Archbishop Usher, whom I now proceed to quote, " Yet was it lit 
 also that this head should be of the same nature with the body which is 
 
i||i 
 
 h i 
 
 M The Bishop of Huron and Trinity Coilcffc, Torouto, 
 
 knit unto ft ; nnii th<^reforethat lie should so hu Gotl, ns that He ntiirht 
 partake of our flebh likewise. * For we arc; inenibers of Ills body/ saitli 
 the same Apostle, *of His llesh, and of His bones.* And, 'except ye 
 eat »helk'sli of the Son of man,' saitU our Saviour Himself, 'and driuk 
 His blood, ye liave no life in you,' * He that eatetli my iiedh, an<l 
 drinketh my blood, dwelleth in JMe, and I in him.* Declaring thereby, 
 first, that by His mystical and supernatural union, we are as truly con- 
 joined with Him, as the meat and drink we take is with us, when by 
 the ordinary work of nature it is converted into our own substance ; 
 secondly, that thii conjunction is immediately made with his human 
 nature" ^ 
 
 Respecting the Bishop's objection to my quoting the sixth cfiapter 
 of St. Jolm, I will only state that while a dillerence of opinion exists 
 among divines as to interpreting the language of the sixtli o\ St. John, 
 directly of the Lord's Supper, or of spiritual feeling in general, all who 
 lield the former opinion, and most of those who hold the latter, would 
 alike agree in urgiuir from this chapter the necessity of the Lord's 
 Supper as the great mean of Divine appointment, whereby the act of 
 spiritual feeling is performed, and the benefit thence resulting received. 
 
 The passage which the Bishop quotes from Archbishop Cranmer is 
 by no means hostile to my application of the text in question. Writing 
 against Gardiner, and against the error of transubstantiati(»n, lie argues 
 that our Lo»'d did not speak in this chapter of sacramental eating, but 
 of spiritual eating ; two acts which he conceived his antagonist to 
 regard as almost identical, but which lie regarded as distinct. It does 
 by no means follow, however, that Cranmer did not look upon sacra- 
 mental feeding as being, after the institution of the Lord's Supper, a 
 necessary condition of spiritual feeding. A quotation, which 1 shall 
 give in my longer letter, will go far to prove that he did so. Both 
 objections appear to be raised ibr the purpose of throwing upon my 
 teaching a vague suspicion of a leaning to the error of transubstantia- 
 tion. This suspicion may, I believe, be completely met by the following 
 extract from my manuscript on the catechism. ** Tlie body and blood 
 of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faiili- 
 ful in the Lord's Supper." *' Verily and indeed," no less truly because 
 not corpomllif : " by the faithful," the wicked cannot receive 1 Cor, 
 X, 21c St. Augustine's saying "the wicked eat 'panem Domini,' but 
 not ' panem Dominum.'" Our Lord s[)eaks also of spiritual benefits 
 which shall certainly follow from eating His flesh and drinking His 
 blood, of which benefits the wicked cannot be thought to partake. St. 
 John vi. 54, 5(i. 
 
 If any man supposes that a person who thus teaches can countenance 
 in any degree the doctrines of trunsubstantiation, I confess myself in- 
 capable of arguini: with him. 
 
 In conclusion, 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 liot been taught in the College, yet at least undue pro- 
 
 * Udber'8 Works, vol, iv. |iop. 608 (see also page 617). 
 
 Ill 
 
*ati 
 
 I He niisrUt 
 
 *ex(!ej)t ye 
 * aird tlriuk 
 
 ileril 
 
 I, aiHl 
 ig thereby, 
 \ truly con* 
 3, wlien by 
 substance ; 
 his human 
 
 ctli cliapter 
 nion exists 
 ^i St. John, 
 ral, uU wlio 
 tter, would 
 the Lord's 
 ' the act of 
 'X received. 
 Drtirnner is 
 I. Writing 
 1, lie argues 
 eating, but 
 tagonist to 
 t. It does 
 ipoii sacra* 
 I Supper, a 
 ich 1 shall 
 so. Both 
 [ upon my 
 substantia- 
 B following 
 ' and blood 
 r the faiih- 
 ily because 
 uve 1 Cor. 
 'otnini,' but 
 al benefits 
 inking His 
 rtake. St. 
 
 Mintenance 
 myself iii- 
 
 rsy is very 
 
 lat if false 
 undue pro- 
 
 minence nnd exaggerated importanrc have been piven to mattcrtt of 
 very secondary moment. Your Lordship is well aware that it is not my 
 teaching, but the Bishop of Huron's strictures on it, which have given 
 this proniinence and importance to tlie matters in question. I do not 
 ».>.y this by way of complaint, but simply in self-defence, and for the 
 purpose of abating a not unreasonable prejudice. The objections are 
 for the most part based on a few short and scattered clauses, not one 
 of which I am prepared to retract, but which I should be very sorry 
 to have made the principal or even prominent topics of my teaching. 
 1 have the honour to be, my Lord, 
 
 Your Lojdship's obliged and faithful servant, 
 Trinity College, September 27, ISGO. GeoUOE VViUTAKER. 
 
 The letter of the Provost having been read, the following resolutions 
 were nnanimonsly adopted : 
 
 Moved by the lion. G. W, Allan, seconded by S. B. Ilarman, Esq., 
 
 liesolmJ, — That this Corporation, havin'T heard the reply of the Pro- 
 vost of Trinity College to the letter of t Bishop of Huron, bearing 
 <late, August 29, 1860, desire to ex[)ress their entire satisfaction with the 
 explanations offered of the charges advanced against tiie theological 
 teaching of the Institution in that letter. 
 
 ^Moved by the Hon. Mr. Justice Hagarty, seconded by the Hon. J. 
 H. Cameron, 
 
 licsolmJ y — That this Corporation feel it incumbent upon tliem to 
 • « xpress their unfeigned surprise and regret at the course which has 
 been adopted by the Bishop of Huron to obtain evidence against the 
 theological teaching of this institution. 
 
 They naturally supi)0sed that a gentleman in the position of the 
 Provost would be safe from any charge of unsoundness until personally 
 referred to for an admission or denial of hearsay statements. Had the 
 charges been denied by the accused, this Corporation could not 
 pro[)erly have objected to the right of his accusers to proceed to c" ct 
 evidence relevant to the charge. 
 
 Apart from the theological bearing of ihe case, this Corporation 
 desire to express their decided opinion as to the unprecedented manner 
 in which grave charges have been publicly advanced against the 
 .soundness of the teaching of this College, by one in whom the law has 
 vested large powers to inquire into aiid reform any \\i\x\g erroneous, h. 
 but who has not attempted to exercise this power in i' constitutional - 
 manner. 
 
 I 
 
The f* ^-p tif Huron and Trinitif College, Toronto, 71 
 
 THE BISHOP OF HUPwON AND TRINITY COLLEGE 
 TOUONTO.-THE PKOVOST'S LETTEU. ' 
 
 T^^\-^*^"%r^ ^."^ ""^'^^^ "'?^^*' *^® necessity of troubling your 
 Lordship with a short communication, which I wish to be reoarded 
 as a postscript to my second letter. «^Co«»»««« 
 
 The Bishop of Huron states in his letter to the members of lae 
 Execume Committee of his Synod that he has heard, when exambin ' 
 graduates of Trmity College, that I have said that "justification wa^ 
 ^ impertment subje.r io introduce before a congregation, as there 
 was not one man m ten thousand who was not already justitied/* 
 Being conscious that I had never brought such a statement before the 
 students I gave the cnarge a flat denial in my first letter. In the 
 second I suggested a remark on which another charge might hare 
 been however unjustly, grounded; but I could recollect at that time 
 nothing which could have served as a basis for thi.- 1 found » '^ •- 
 ever yesterday, in Waterland (vol. vi, p. 32, Oxford.' 1843) a p^sTage 
 
 The charge '' '' '° ""^ ' '''' '^^ ^^^'^ '^^ ^^"^^ g^^« ^^<^^^i^^ ^ 
 
 ni 
 
m 
 
 a.'j.^ 
 
 73 The Bishop of Jhiron and Trinity Colleye, Toronto. ' ' 
 
 Dr WatcrlancVs words nrc : " Some will plead, that man is utterly 
 
 unSn;r;^o U works before h. ^ ^-^^^^.^^^Z^t^^ 
 fihouUl rather say before he receives grace ; for that »%t'.e teai anu 
 J e full tru h. Hut what occasior or ne-d is there for disturbing 
 the lull ^^"^ 'V; , 11 ,yit,^ ii^ts of this nature now ? Are we 
 
 r"w>f • a yl ;ln Ihousand to one), baptized in infancy; 
 
 and lu f<^e regenenfted a^ul justified of course and thereby prepared 
 ?or good works: as soon as capable of th.m by our years:' Good 
 works must in this case at least (which is our case) f<.llow after 
 Tus U caTion and regeneration, if they are at all : and therefore how 
 mnmin^ and frivolous is it, if not hurtful rather, to amuse the 
 i"nCt with such notions, which, in onr circumstances, may much 
 
 '"'0bse';:'S'That the words arc not mine, but Dr. Waterland's. 
 
 "^^Th^tt: w^^'^iJ^tinent-in his writings, as those of n 
 grav; ?ld intelligent author, signifies "out of place," unsuitable to 
 
 the sulrct. composing a treatise on justific^ tion, 
 
 Jfnot sfy a is an impertinent subject to introduce before rj 
 oon' re° athm but that, under the circumstances whu-h then existed 
 
 tan ht as those " which have believed in God, that they snou.a 
 
 '-t 'd," ™:;i"aoos ,ir:;:; "it -.^ .he. u .^ -c .»„ in to. 
 
 tho,;La«l.ois„ot already .iustili,.!." He Xl,' ^irf^cy m 
 „.. or nearly all (ton t loiisainl to one), baptized in inlancy , ami 
 ere ore -enera ed and justified of oni-.se." I do not exjiect that 
 neaehin", »y more than tl.ttt of the Prayer-Book, will escape 
 r" ..■0 lationT but^ at all event, he speaks with reverenee ; lie d »- 
 "inputs between the mi- islration of the external "'« ""d Jl,. 
 rccepiion of the inward gra, ■, and makes the former, not the latter, 
 the snbiect of his numerical calculation. (•„,„» 
 
 I I ave "ivcn this, perhaps superlluoiis, explanation, first for my 
 
 own s^ke, because if 'tl!;=re is' one error "^^'^f \Tdi"."n an 
 I would carefully avoid the appearance, it is that "' *'S>"^ ng ■" "-V 
 decree what I teach, or what 1 believe : and secondly, (or the sake 01 
 the BWho of Iluro, -s informant, whom I would not wilh.lly suflfer to 
 e „rd r 't, • imputation of having stated what was a pure ^"ncaUon 
 i't is quite sunici'ent that he should be e^.iouso^ 
 rroS;':trni;LSy^o,.^£3ships obliged and faithful Servant, 
 
 GEORGE WHITAKER, 
 
 Trinity College, Nov. 13, 18H0.