OBJECTIONS OF THE BISHOP OF HURON

TO THE

TEACHING OF TRINITY COLLEGE,

Now in the hands of the Provost.

At the meeting of the Corporation of Trinity College which was held on the 18th of February last, I proposed the following resolution:--

"Whereas two letters have been recently published by the Provost of Trinity College, avowedly with the approval and under the authority of this Corporation, and whereas, these letters, contain many things which appear to a large number of the members of this Church throughout the country to be highly objectionable, and whereas, the approval of this Corporation thus claimed for these letters is calculated to alienate the minds of the people from this University, and to destroy all confidence in it, as a sound and safe institution for the education of the youth of our church in the protestant principles of the Church of England; therefore, be it resolved, that this Corporation regrets that these letters should have been published as by its authority, and desires distinctly to record that it does not hold itself responsible for the opinions maintained in these letters."

The object of this resolution was to obtain from the Corporation an opinion on the letters which the Provost addressed to the Lord Bishop of Toronto in reply to the, charges brought by me against the teaching of Trinity College. In asking for this opinion there was no attempt to judge or condemn the Provost unheard. He had been heard in his defence in these letters, his pamphlet of 96 pages, carefully and elaborately written upon the charges brought against his teaching had been published avowedly under the sanction of this Corporation, and circulated throughout the country, and it was the duty of every member of the Corporation to be thoroughly acquainted with its contents. But instead of pronouncing an opinion on the defence of the Provost contained in these letters, an amendment was adopted by the Corporation, which was moved by the Chief Justice, and seconded by the Bishop Elect of Ontario, the effect of which was to express the entire confidence of the Corporation in the teaching of the Provost, and to evade expressing any opinion on the Provost's pamphlet, which-was the subject of the resolution moved by me. The following is the amendment:--

"That it be resolved that the. Corporation of Trinity College does not assume either to represent or to identify itself with the views of any party in the Council. That the opinion expressed by the Corporation on the first letters of the Provost, vindicated the writer from the imputation of teaching doctrines not allowed by the Church, and to that opinion the corporation still adheres. That, although the second letter of the Provost was not submitted to the Corporation its publication was authorised as stated by him. And, although the Corporation is not committed to its details, it is not aware that it can be shown to be contrary to the teaching of the Church; that the Corporation cannot, therefore, entertain any proposition to condemn any portion of either of these letters without a specific statement, in writing, of the objections that are urged against them."

I then moved the following resolution:--

"That a committee be appointed to receive a written statement of the objections made to the doctrines contained in the three letters o the Provost and, also, of any answer thereto, and to report to this Corporation at future meeting."

In accordance with this resolution I have prepared written objections to the opinions contained in the letters published by the Provost of Trinity College, which were written after mature consideration, in reply to the charges brought by me against the teaching of Trinity College, which are, therefore, to be taken as a full and candid statement of his views, and as furnishing the best and strongest arguments which the Provost can adduce in favor of his opinions.

When at the request of the Executive Committee of the Synod of my diocese, 1 addressed a letter to them in August, 1860, setting forth the grounds upon which I had formed my opinion upon the teaching of Trinity College, the only documents to which I could refer were the notes which the Students had taken of the lectures delivered to them by the Provost. Several copies of these notes had come under my notice. and they agreed so entirely in all important points that I could not resist the conclusion that I had before me a correct statement of the teaching of the Provost, or at all events a faithful account of the ideas imparted, and of the effects produced upon the minds of the Students by the teaching to which they had been subjected.

These gentlemen, some of whom were no longer youths in the strict acceptation of the term, were fully convinced that they possessed in their note books the exact answers which the Provost required to his questions, in proof of which they distinctly stated that when examined they gave these answers precisely as they appear in their notes, and that such answers were never objected to by the Provost. The Provost has, indeed, denied the accuracy of these notes, and refuses to be held responsible for them; but as he has published three letters in reply to my charges, addressed to the Lord Bishop of Toronto in which he has fully stated his views, I now appeal to his published opinions in proof that the Theological teaching of Trinity College is dangerous to the young men who are subjected to it. This is the opinion which I expressed in reply to a question put to me by a lay-delegate in the Synod of my diocese, held in June, 1860; and now, after the lapse of so many months, affording opportunity for more thorough investigation and careful reflection, and having before me the opinions of the Provost, fully stated by himself in his three letters to the Bishop, I feel constrained to reiterate the opinion, and to add that my conviction is more fully established that the teaching of Trinity College is not only subversive of those Scriptural and Protestant principles which have been the glory of our Church since the Reformation, but calculated also to beget in the minds of the alumni of that institution impressions favorable to the unscriptural and superstitious doctrines and practices of the Roman Church.

The Provost, in his published letters, has not confined himself to those points

adverted to in my letter, but on other topics also has enunciated opinions which in my view are even more unscriptural and more dangerous than those to which I objected. I shall first notice the opinions propounded by the Provost on the subjects mentioned in my letter of August, 1860, and I shall then bring forward my objections to those additional statements which the Provost has introduced in his pamphlet. In adverting to the authorities quoted by the Provost, I shall be careful only to employ them as giving corroboration to the views of the Provost upon the points in question.

The first subject to which I would advert, is the undue exaltation of the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of our Lord. The Inspired writers of the New Testament have said but little of the Virgin Mary, as if the Holy Spirit foresaw and designed to discountenance beforehand the superstition and idolatry which, through this door, afterwards found entrance into the Church of God. The little which is said of the Virgin is not calculated, in any wise, to exalt her, above the level of a creature, or to encourage superstitious feelings concerning her. Our Church has wisely followed the example thus set by the Inspired writers. All that she has taught upon this subject may be summed up in one brief sentence. Christ was born of a pure virgin. The Provost has gone far beyond this in his teaching, and the effect upon the minds of Students has been to make them believe that the answers in the manuscript notes which they had compiled were in accordance with the views put forth

I him. They -- one and all -- believed that they had been taught that Mary had an appointed type in the law, and that she was "an instrument in bringing mankind into the Kingdom of Heaven." The Provost, in his pamphlet, page 25, says:-- "I consider this latter clause to be open to very dangerous constructions, as it might be understood to imply some past or permanent ministry of the Blessed Virgin, tending immediately to the salvation of mankind". This is precisely the opinion which I have formed and expressed concerning this answer. The Provost says he did not teach this. I, of course, believe him. But the Students must have supposed that he did teach it, for where else could they have learned it? -- bot from the Holy Scriptures -- not in the Church Catechism -- not in the Creed -- not from their parents and friends. They believed that they learned this from the Provost in his

lectures, and therefore they all entered it in their notes. While, therefore, I must credit the Provost's denial, still I must regard that teaching as singularly defective and most dangerous, which could lead intelligent Students to suppose that the Provost intended to teach that which he now so emphatically repudiates as open to "very dangerous construction." We cannot suppose, for one moment, that these students intentionally falsified their notes; and we have good reason to believe that those gentlemen who read and digested such instructions have gone forth into the Church and the world believing and ready to teach concerning the Virgin Mary that which the Provost now agrees with me in characterizing as "very dangerous."

With reference to the probable intercession of departed Saints for us, the Provost states, in page 92 of his pamphlet: "I must still do as I have ever done, speak of it as a probable opinion, not as a truth revealed to us in Holy Scripture." Upon his own admission, then, he strands, as a teacher of youth in the Church of England, inculcating, as probably true, a doctrine not found in the Word of God, and on which the Church is entirely silent!! -- Whether the intercession of departed Saints for us be a probable and pious opinion, may well be questioned. Whatever may be the sentiments of some who have ventured rashly to speculate upon things which are not revealed, and have professed to be wise above what is written; of this fact the Provost cannot be ignorant that there are in the Church many able Divines who regard it not only as unwarranted by the word of God but repugnant to it as a vain conceit and derogatory to the Redeemer's glory. And I cannot but consider it dangerous to young men thus to be led off the track laid down by the Church in a Romeward direction, more especially in times like the present when we have beheld large numbers of our clergy and laity forsaking the Scriptural Church of their fathers and falling victims to the corruptions and idolatries of the Church of Rome. And most, if not all, of these men commenced their downward course by just such rash speculations upon unrevealed subjects as the Provost has been in the habit of bringing before the students of Trinity College.

The next point to which I have objected in the teaching of the Provost, is, his doctrine concerning priestly absolution. The Provost holds and teaches the highest and most ultra view concerning the power of the priest to forgive sins which has ever been taught even in the Church of Rome. In the 94th page of his pamphlet he thus expresses himself: "Respecting remission of sins I must teach as I leave ever done. Did I not believe as I do, I trust that I should not be still consenting to the act of past years, when I knelt before the Bishop and received, in the solemn words of our ordinal, authority to execute the office of a Priest in the Church of God. What mean these words? or are they idle words ? "Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained."

From this it might appear that the Provost thinks that these words of Scripture, quoted in our ordinal, would be "idle" if not interpreted absolutely without any condition, limitation, or exception. But in page 29 of his pamphlet we find the following explanation of the power of the keys, and of the limitation and exceptions which must be understood when the words of our Blessed Lord are employed in the ordinal: -- "True repentance which cannot exist apart from true faith in Christ is presupposed as the indispensable qualification of the recipient of the pardon which Good is then asserted to bestow in the Church through the authoritative, yet simply ministerial absolution of the minister, which takes effect, not at his [the minister's] pleasure, but according to the genuineness of the repentance of those to whom it is ministered." From this we learn that the Provost does limit the words of the ordinal, but that still he regards the absolution of the Priest as not merely declarative, but as effectual and necessary before pardon is recorded in heaven. If this is the "honest conviction" of the Provost, as he states, he is right to hold his opinion, but I cannot but regard it as dangerous that such views of judicial, effectual priestly absolution should be taught in an institution of the Church. "Our Church teaches that God hath given power and commandment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins." And in the exercise of this power they are to declare that "God pardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent and unfeignedly believe his Holy Gospel." Thus does the Church interpret the words of the ordinal. The sinner who truly repents and believes the Gospel is fully pardoned and accepted by God; his sins and iniquities are blotted out for ever. The minister has power and authority to declare this for the comfort of the believer, and for the strengthening of his faith. How different is this

from the power which the Provost and his authorities claim for the Priest, of pardoning effectually the sins of the penitent believer before they are pardoned of God. In the passage which the Provost has quoted on page 55 of his pamphlet, this judicial power to forgive sins is stated in the most repulsive and unscriptural form in the words of Chrysostom and Pope Gregory, as quoted with approval by Bishop Sparrow. "Heaven waits and expects the Priest's sentence here on earth; and the Lord follows the servant, and what the servant rightly binds or looses here on earth the Lord confirms in heaven." The Apostles and in them all Priests, were made God's vicegerents here on earth, in his name and stead, to retain and remit sins. "When, therefore, the Priest absolves, God absolves, if we be truly penitent."

Such views of the effectual judicial power of the Priest to forgive sins I must regard as most dangerous to young men. And I know that some who have been taught at Trinity College hold them. I feel myself, therefore, bound, to enter my solemn protest against the teaching of such in this institution.

The next point which I would notice in the teaching of the Provost is his doctrine concerning the sacraments. As to the number of the sacraments, I think it dangerous for our youth to be taught that there are two "great sacraments" and other holy rites and sacraments, when our Church dogmatically teaches in the catechism that there are "two only." And in the articles, "there are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." And that these five commonly called sacraments, that is to say confession, penance, orders, matrimony and extreme unction, are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel. Whatever may be said concerning the ancient use of the word "sacrament," since the Reformation the word has had but one application in our Church, and it cannot be regarded as either wise or safe to lead our young men to look upon other rites and ceremonies as at all to be placed on the same footing as the only two sacraments which Christ has ordained. This is well stated in a passage quoted by the Provost from Archbishop Secker: "By the early writers of the Western (i.e. the Popish) Church it was used to express almost anything relating to our holy religion, at least anything that was figurative, and signified something further than at first sight appeared. But afterwards a more confined use of the word prevailed by degrees; and in that stricter sense, which hath long been the common one, and which our catechism follows, the nature of a sacrament comprehends the following, &c." Why should our Church teachers now evince a desire to go hack to the use of forms or phrases which our Reformers carefully avoided?

With reference to the nature and office of the sacraments the Provost's views are open to the same objection. Our Church teaches that the sacraments are outward signs of inward grace and seals to those who truly repent and believe in God's mercy and favor towards them. The Provost evidently regards them in quite a different light. He quotes a passage from Waterland in his third letter to the Bishop of Toronto, which, he says, he had read to his class, in which the following view of baptism is given: "Are we not all of us, or nearly all, [ten thousand to one] baptised in infancy, and therefore regenerated and justified of course." The doctrine of baptismal justification is that against which our Reformers most strenuously contended, as the root of many of the doctrinal errors in the Church of Rome. The XI. article of our Church teaches that "we are accounted righteous [justified] before God only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c." And in the Homily on the salvation of mankind we read that man is justified "freely by faith in Christ," and that "faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins." Yet the Provost propounds the opinion, and adduces sundry quotations from the writings of fallible men to prove that all baptised persons are justified, and that though out Church teaches that faith sends us directly to Christ for the remission of our sins; still, "the doctrine of justification by faith, rightly understood, is not inconsistent with the statement that faith sends us to Christ for the remission of our sins through sacraments and ordinances of his appointment." What the Provost means it is difficult to comprehend. How can the statements that "we are justified by faith only," and that "faith sends us directly to Christ," be understood to mean that we are justified by baptism and not by faith only, and that faith sends us to Christ, not directly, but through sacraments'&c. -- Here is one of the worst features in the system taught by the Provost. "Justification by faith only" has ever been regarded as the grand distinguishing feature between the reformed and corrupt Churches. And I cannot but regard it as most dangerous to endeavour to undermine it or explain it away, as has been done in the

second and third letters of the Provost, and in the quotations which he has adduced on this subject.

With reference to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the Provost has explained his views in a passage which occurs in pp. 76-77 of his pamphlet. "Before the charge, or rather the insinuation, of the Bishop of Huron, I should have thought it quite unnecessary to explain to any one that I do not understand by the 'glorified humanity' of our Lord anything which can be orally received; nor again do I understand, when Mr. Proctor says that 'every faithful recipient there partakes of Christ's glorified humanity,' that he dreams of any local presence of this heavenly gift in or with the earthly elements, but means simply that in faithfully receiving the sign, we surely receive the thing signified. By the word there, I understand, as the Bishop of Huron seems to have done, in the sacrament, and by the sacrament, not the outward, material sign, but the holy celebration." From this explanation it is very difficult to collect what view the Provost really entertains concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. But he has quoted in page 87 of his pamphlet a charge of the Bishop of St. David's, in which his Lordship altogether condemns the propositions of Archdeacon Denison concerning this Sacrament. I therefore conclude that the Provost agrees with his Lordship in repudiating the doctrine taught by the Archdeacon. In that charge I find some wise and judicious remarks concerning the use of the term 'the real presence.' His Lordship says, "The phrase real presence is foreign to the language of the Church of England, and has been wisely avoided as liable to abuse, and likely to deceive or scandalize the simple and ignorant." It must be apparent to all that the term which the Provost has employed, from the writings of Mr. Proctor, and has so vehemently defended, "that every faithful recipient partakes, in the Eucharist of the glorified humanity of our Lord" is much more likely to deceive and scandalize the simple and ignorant and should therefore be regarded as dangerous and avoided in lectures addressed to young men on the Catechism. The Provost had quoted this charge with the highest commendation as exactly stating his own views, and in it we find language employed which is capable of being interpreted so as to express and support a view of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament which is not in accordance with the teaching of our Church. His Lordship speaks of what he ventures to call 'the

objective reality in tie sacrament' and he says 'but they are apt to overlook the necessity for

something beside the instrument and the condition which is more indispensable than

either, namely, the presence, the power, the spiritual agency by which the instrument is effectually applied.' It would have been well, had his Lordship remembered his own rule and avoided the use of phrases which are capable of a most unscriptural interpretation. There is a passage in the Provost's pamphlet which sets the sacrament of the Lord's Supper before the reader in a light altogether different from that in which our Church teaches us to regard it. This passage occurs in page 80th of the pamphlet. "I am perfectly satisfied to admit that it speaks of a supernatural gift, which both before the institution of the Eucharist and afterwards may have been and may still be received without it, but for the reception of which the holy communion is the appointed mean and the only mean whereby Holy Scripture assures us that we shall receive it if duly prepared," while our Church teaches that the

Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a rich mean of grace to the faithful recipient, it

nowhere teaches that it is "the appointed mean and the only mean," whereby we can

be assured that we shall receive the supernatural gift promised by God to his believing people, nay more, the Rubric at the close of the service for the communion of the sick enjoins the Curate to instruct the sick man that "if he do truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him and shed his blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the body and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth." Here is no doubtful and uncertain may such as the Provost employs, but the fullest assurance is to be given to the penitent believing sufferer that without the Sacrament he has all the spiritual blessings signified in that ordinance.

The unqualified application of the vi. of John to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is another feature in the teaching of the Provost which cannot but be regarded as dangerous. The times in which we live demand a caution which at another period might not be necessary. There is a strong tide of opinion, more especially amongst the young, setting towards those false doctrines and erroneous practices from which our forefathers at the Reformation freed the Church, and it is our duty to endeavour by the use of every legitimate means to save those placed under our direction from being carried away by the haste and rashness of youth towards the Gulf in which so many have made shipwreck of the faith.

In my letter of August 1860, I incidentally mentioned that I had heard from Students of Trinity College the statement, that "the Church of England lost at the Reformation some things which were in themselves good and tended to edification."

"The Provost in his 1st letter page 24th of his pamphlet meets this, as he says, with a flat denial of its truth," in plain English, he pronounces it a falsehood. Yet in his second letter, page 34, we find however the following passage. "I have never indulged in maudlin regrets respecting the losses we sustained at the reformation and there call be no possible colour for the charge, except it be that, in reading of admirable early usages, which our Reformers did not venture to restore, such as that mentioned by Justin Martyr, the conveyance of the consecrated elements to all sick members of the Church after every public celebration of the Eucharist I have said that we might well regret that we possessed not this usage in our Church, but that our regret should be controlled by the remembrance that a necessary consequence of the grievous abuses which preceded the reformation was to abridge our liberty, and to deprive us of "good things which might have been safely enjoyed in happier times."

It is not to be wondered at that Students hearing such statements as the above should come to the conclusion that "at the reformation, our Church lost some good things." The Provost speaks of "Admirable usages" which our Reformers did not venture to restore, and he instances the conveyance of the consecrated elements to sick after every publick celebration of the Eucharist, now this is a usage against which our Church in her Rubric upon this subject and in her Articles specially protests. The Provost states that he has never indulged in maudlin regrets respecting losses sustained at the reformation, and yet by his own showing he teaches young men that they may well regret that there are "admirable early usages" which we do not now possess, and that in the Church of England we are now deprived of "good things," which in happier times we might have enjoyed. Surely the tendency of this teaching must be to make the Student dissatisfied with the Church of England as it now is, and to look with an eye of favor upon that Church which still retains those "admirable usages," any in which those "good things" are now enjoyed. The Clergy of the Church of England are bound "so to minister the doctrine and sacraments and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and realm hath received the same." I cannot but regard it as dangerous to lead young men to look back to the Church in the period before the reformation as possessing "admirable usages" which our Reformers could not venture to restore and as then enjoying "good things" of which we are now deprived.

The Provost has adduced the names of many eminent men and has claimed them as his authorities for his teaching on different points. Amongst the authorities thus adduced we find Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Hooper, Jewel, Hooker, Usher, Calvin and Baxter. Can the Provost show that these men embraced and taught his system as a whole? That they taught, that the pardon of sin and justification are obtained by the penitent and believing sinner first in baptism, as the only effectual instrument of justification, and after baptism, by the authoritative absolutions of the Priest, and that the Eucharist is "the only mean" whereby the supernatural gift of Christ as the food of the soul can with certainty be obtained? Can he adduce them as teaching that "all of us or nearly all [ten thousand to one] are baptised in infancy, and therefore regenerated and justified of course?" That there is no certain forgiveness of sin after baptism to the penitent believer until the Priest has absolved him, and that then, and not until then, his pardon is confirmed in heaven, that "when the Priest absolves God absolves if we be truly penitent." Can he adduce them to support his view that "admirable early usages" and "good things" enjoyed by the Church before the reformation are not now possessed by us? and that Faith sends us to Christ, not directly as our Church teaches in the Homily on Salvation, but indirectly though

Sacraments and other ordinances? and in fine can he adduce any one of these great and good men in support of the system of Sacramental Salvation which, on his own showing, he holds and teaches in the University? Of this system I would say with Bishop Burnett. "The doctrine of Sacramental Justification is justly to reckoned amongst the most mischievous of all those practical errors that are in the Church of Rome. Since therefore this is nowhere mentioned in all these large discourses that are in the New Testament concerning justification, we have just reason to reject it. Since also the natural consequence of this doctrine is to make men rest contented in low imperfect acts when they can be so easily made up by a Sacrament, we have just reason to detest it as one of the depths of Satan; the tendency of it being to make those ordinances of the Gospel which were given as a means to raise and heighten our faith and repentance become engines to encourage sloth and impenitence." [Burnet on Article xi.]

Were we at liberty to range through the voluminous writings of these and

other eminent men, and to select from one and another, some weak and, perhaps, erroneous opinion which, in their fallibility, they may have written, we could construct such a system of doctrine as would be utterly repugnant to God's word, and by pleading each of these men for something in our false system we might persuade the unwary to believe that we had their sanction for the whole. Such a proceeding would be most fallacious. If Latimer and Ridley, if Hooper and Jewel, if Hooker and Usher are worthy of being adduced as authorities on some, perhaps minor points, their opinion on the great fundamental doctrines of the Christian system should not be utterly despised and rejected.

I have thus presented my objections to the teaching of the Provost of Trinity College. This Corporation is the only tribunal before which these charges can with propriety be brought; as a Clergyman of the Church of England, Mr. Whitaker is not under my jurisdiction, not being in my diocese, and therefore it would be not only absurd, but highly presumptuous in me, to present charges against him before any Ecclesiastical tribunal, and thus to interfere with the duties of another Bishop. But as Provost of this University, he is subject to my supervision, and when I think there is in his conduct or teaching any thing which calls for investigation, this is the only tribunal to which I can, with propriety, appeal. The Law has invested us, as a body, with plenary power to deal with all matters which concern the interests of the University, and I can never consent to throw upon others the responsibility of doing that which we are capable of doing, and which we alone are, by law, authorized to do.

London, May 1862. BENJ. HURON.