Convention, expressed the following view in regard to the state of that institution : "The examinations, annual and semiannual, have been regularly held according to the provisions of the statutes; and while the variety in attainment has been observed, which is inseparable from so numerous a body of learners, the general result has always been satisfactory-honorable alike to the professors and students. The Trustees feel themselves justified in adopting the language of the Report made in June last, by the committee on the final examination of the students. In addition to the testimony grounded upon the performances and proficiency of the students of the several classes, the committee desire respectfully and explicitly to state, that not only the whole course of study pursued, but the whole tenor and tone of the sentiments elicited from the students by the questions of the professors, appeared to be in perfect accordance with the doctrines, discipline, and worship of the church, and such as were calculated to sustain its elevated character and command the public confidence and respect.' "In conclusion, the Trustees feel assured, that the General Theological Seminary has never been in a more healthful condition than it is at the present time. They humbly trust that through God's blessing, it will continue to pursue steadily and faithfully the end and aim of its establishment, and to merit the full con⚫fidence and support of the church in the United States."-Journal, p. 230. In reference to this statement, so positive respecting the doctrinal purity of the Seminary, a portion of the Trustees, embracing three bishops, two presbyters, and two lay men, presented the following paper to the Convention : "To the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, assembled in General Convention, A. D. 1844. "The undersigned, Trustees of the General Theological Seminary, voting in the minority and against the adoption of the Triennial Report presented at this session to the General Convention; beg leave respectfully to lay before the Convention a brief statement, furnishing, together with the reasons of their dissent from the said Report, facts, which in the judgment of the undersigned, demand the serious consideration of the Council of the church. "At the stated meeting of the Trustees held in New York, on the 30th of Sep tember last, the above named Report on the state of the Seminary was submitted by the standing committee of the Trustees, to be adopted by the Board, and transmitted as their Report to the General Convention at its present session. Upon its being read, its consideration was on motion postponed, until after hearing the Report of a special committee, consisting of three bishops, two presbyters, and two laymen, which had been appointed by the Board in June last, under the following circumstances. A trustee of the diocese of South Carolina having laid before the Board certain resolutions, passed by the Convention of that diocese, touching rumors prejudicial to the Seminary, it was resolved, that the said resolutions be referred to a committee to consist of seven members, to report in the fullest manner.' In consequence (as they stated subsequently) of the difficulty of reducing the subject matter committed to them to form, the interruption arising from their attendance at the sessions of the Board, and the public examinations of the students, and their wish to give the matter a full investigation,' the special committee were unable to report to the Board at the June session, and were continued, with directions to report at the Triennial meeting in September. They reported accordingly at the meeting of the 30th, by submitting to the Board the minutes of their meetings, and their correspondence with the Professors in the discharge of their appointed duties, closing with resolutions to the effect, that in consequence of the difficulties interposed in the way of a full investigation, the committee should be discharged, and the whole matter entrusted to them, be referred to the Bishops in their capacity as visitors of the institution. In this as pect of the case, the undersigned felt themselves justified in withholding their assent from the Report when the question was taken on its adoption, and particularly from the unqualified commenda. tion of the Seminary with which it concludes. They object to the Triennial Report, because it pronounces confidently upon the doctrinal soundness of the Seminary, at the very time when that very question, under the Board's own authority, is undergoing a solemn investigation, and because it sends that confident declaration to the General Convention after that committee has reported its work to be undone, and to have been prevented by the refusal of certain Professors to appear before it, and when in consequence of such refusal, the Bishops, as visitors, have been requested to pursue the investigation, and have resolved to do so, as they have informed your House. "In conclusion, the undersigned feel themselves constrained to ask the attention of the House to the extraordinary fact, that CHAS. P. McILVAINE, P. G. STUYVESANT, Philadelphia, Oct. 8, 1844. Journal, pp. 230, 231. The same point was brought be fore the Convention also in a direct form of a motion originating in the house of clerical and lay deputies. At an early period of the Convention, the following preamble and resolutions were offered: "Whereas, in the estimation of many ministers and members of the Prostestant Episcopal Church in the United States, serious errors of doctrine have, within a few years, been introduced and extensively promulgated, by means of tracts, through the periodical press, and from the pulpit and whereas it is important, for the preservation of the peace and pu rity of the church, that such errors, if existing, should be met, and as far as practicable removed, by the action of this Convention: "Be it therefore Resolved, if the House of Bishops concur, that it is desirable to prepare and promulgate a clear and distinct expression of the opinions entertained by this Convention respecting the Rule of Faith, the Justification of Man, the nature, design, and efficacy of the Sacraments, and such other matters as, in view of the foregoing circumstances, may be deemed expedient by the House of Bishops. "Be it further Resolved, That it is desirable that such expression of opinion should originate in the House of Bishops, and receive the concurrent action of this House, and that the House of Bishops be requested to take action accordingly."Journal, pp. 30, 31. Vol. III. 46 That it may be seen that there was no doubt about the errors which were aimed at, and that we may understand the nature and bearing of the harmonious result which was reached, we copy some of the modifications and amendments which were proposed during the discussion : "Whereas differences of opinion on subjects deemed of grave importance exist among the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States : and whereas it is believed that there is common ground upon which those thus differing may meet in harmony and love, as members of our Branch of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church : Therefore, Resolved, That the House of Bishops be respectfully requested to make a subject of their godly counsel and advice, in their Pastoral Letter, the great principles which distinguish the Protestant Episcopal Church, on the one hand, from the corruptions of Rome; and on the other, from the other errors of Sectarianism."-Journal, P. 31. 66 "Whereas, the minds of many of the members of this church throughout its union, are sorely grieved and perplexed, by the alleged introduction among them of serious errors in doctrine and practice, having their origin in certain writings, emanating chiefly from members of the University of Oxford in England; and Whereas, it is exceedingly desirable that the minds of such persons should be calmed, their anxieties allayed, and the church disabused of the charge of holding, in her articles and offices, doctrines and practices consistent with all the views and opinions expressed in said Oxford writings, and should thus be freed from a responsibility which does not properly belong to her: Therefore— 66 Resolved, That the House of Bishops be respectfully requested to communicate with this House on this subject, and to take such order thereon, as the nature and magnitude of the evil alluded to may seem to them to require."-Journal, p. 38. "Resolved, That the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies consider the Liturgy, offices, and articles of the church, sufficient exponents of her sense of the essential doctrines of holy Scripture; and that the canons of the church afford ample means of discipline and correction for all who depart from her standards; and further, that the General Convention is not a suitable tribunal for the trial and censure of, and that the church is not responsible for, the errors of individuals, whether they are members of this church or otherwise."-Journal, p. 60. We do not propose to report at length the debates which occurred on these resolutions and amendments. For the purpose of setting before our readers, however, a fair account of the remarkable result which was reached, and of showing how the alarm of those who expressed themselves most decidedly, especially those of the evangelical party, who we had been led to suppose would be martyrs in the cause, insensibly and mysteriously died away, we will copy a few of the observations made on the subject as they were reported in the published "Proceedings and Debates of the Convention." We refer to these statements as furnishing testimony that there was occasion for some action of the House on the subject. Of the existence of alarming errors and painful distractions in the church, the Rev. Dr. Brooke of Ohio remarked, that “He considered the subject one of deep interest-it was part of the evil tree, with the eradication of which this Convention must have to do, and therefore it was both proper and necessary to discuss it. * * * It was as notorious as the sun in its noonday brightness, that there was a deep and important controversy in the church. Some had been instructed to discuss and here make disposal of those questions, and any attempt to put an extinguisher or an impress on it, would, he trusted, be put down." "The Rev. Dr. Brooke asserted that neither in the Protestant Episcopal church of England nor America, had there ever been so many fundamental differences as now existed. Let it be remembered, that we differ materially as to the word differences.' Whatever others might think, he for one believed that we were trying nothing less than the whole question of the Reformation over again. The question, however it might be covered up by terms, was the question of Protestantism vs. Romanistn. Believing this, then, to be the fact, he should therefore give his vote in favor of asking the House of Bishops to give this body the benefit of their views. He believed the question of the Reformation was up again under a separate form, under many specious forms; and never did he think so much of the knowledge and learning of a Luther and the courage of a Latimer as on the present occasion. *** He said he advoca ted those resolutions believing there were fundamental errors to be corrected." "As to the limitation of these errors, it was notorious that no less than ten of our Bishops had felt it their duty to bear testimony against them in their annual charges. Were they fighting against shadows? Did they mistake something imaginary for reality, and contend against that? Three Bishops had sanctioned them, with some minor reservations; and appearance of No. 90 of the Oxford Tracts, in a neighboring diocese, even after the episcopal sanction had been given to the whole series."-Proceedings, pp. 7, 17, 33. On the existence and prevalence of difference and strifes in the Convention, the Hon. John M. Berchurch, demanding the action of the rien, as a debater we think the ablest man in the Convention, remarked: "We could not disguise from ourselves exist. We could not disguise from ourthe fact that these differences of opinion do selves the fact that the continued maintenance of the opinion, in the manner in which those discussions had been, up to this time conducted, had had the effect to disturb the peace and harmony of the church, and alienate brother from brother, tainly, not only every Episcopalian, but and produce a state of things which cerwhich every sincere Christian regretted." "Let us appeal" (said Mr. Macfarland, of Virginia) to the House of Bishopsto the wisdom, the learning, and the exalted piety of that body, to ascertain if there may not be a remedy for the disthe church. Let us not break up and go traction and confusion which agitates home without making an experiment in a spirit of candor, of fraternal affection, of sincere love, to see if it is not possible for the two Houses to provide a remedy for what is an evil, a growing evil, and a lamentable evil in the church."-Proceedings, pp. 14, 15. The Rev. Dr. Tyng of Philadelphia, whose qualifications to bear testimony on this subject, and whose prominence in the church is such as to give weight to his views on any subject, used the following language-language adapted to show the deepest conviction that the time church demanded that some decisive had come when the welfare of the measures should be taken to save it from dangerous error. "The practical question brought before us was this: Is there excitement in the church? and can it be reconciled by any action of ours?' He (Dr. T.) could not say to what extent, to what valuable result, the proposition might lead. If the Articles of the church were alone adequate to the disseminating of the truth, where was the necessity, he asked, of expounding the Gospel? If, with individuals, dithculty in religious opinion should arise, it was their privilege that the mouth of the priest should keep knowledge;' and so, if those difficulties arose in a community, he held it to be the right of those belonging to the church to ask, through this House, the aid, advice, and counsel of the House of Bishops to settle their religious doubts; and in the adoption of that course, he was sure the fathers of the church would give their assistance, aided by the Holy Spirit, to quiet and set at rest the troubles which now agitated the church. He maintained that it was the duty of the church to go to the House of Bishops and ask information. He utterly denied that an exposition of the point in controversy was an addition to our articles of faith. It was well known that for years the difficulty had been increasing upon the church, and which might be attributed to the fact of gentlemen publishing their own opinions in regard to theological questions, and for which opinions the church had mistakenly been held answerable. He was an advocate of free discussion, but he could not but lament the turn which the public mind had taken. Every one here had heard of the melancholy state of affairs within the church. The arrival of every mail brought us painful tidings of the agitated and distracted state of the church. Every diocese was distracted; every parish was disturbed. No matter where the error was, or whence it came-it existed. There was a difficulty in our remote settlements-they were agitated and disturbed--and all our attempts to allay the excitement were thwarted and in vain. Suspicion, too, he lamented to say, had gone abroad among ourselves; and in making this remark, he did not wish to be understood as at all alluding to those on the outside of the church. He would not ask what the world thought, or what it said it was crucified to him. What 'broken and contrite spirits' were bleeding in his congregation, was a serious question to him-spirits whom he was bound to relieve. Charged as he was with the spiritual interests of those persons-having the responsibility of them lying upon the church; he was baptized in the early days of his soul in a way that he must answer in judgment to God, whatever his views of the expediency and correctness of the course now proposed to be taken by this House might be be could assure those around him he * * # felt the deepest interest in the fate of the propositions before the body. With regard to the speculations which had been indulged in as to certain errors which might hereafter arise, he would only remark, that it was enough for him now to know that the church was agitated; it was enough for him to know that it was said to be disturbed, agitated, and distracted in the most alarming degree. Were we placed in a condition in which the controversy was endless? No, he trusted not. Up to within a few years past there were no such controversies. He was born within the limits of his infancy in it, and he had grown up in the knowledge of this church, but never until of late years had there been any serious difficulty in it."-Proceedings, pp. 18, 19. In the same spirit, the Rev. Dr. Empie, of Virginia, remarked "That to leave the church in the situation in which she now was and had been for some years, without any expression on the part of the General Convention, would be to pursue a course highly dangerous to the Protestant cause, and against the interests of our holy religion." "If the evil was of a trifling natureif it was a subject of doubtful utility-if no great interest or principle was invol ved-if the subject was of an exciting nature, then it would be wrong to agitate it-then the evil consequences of the agi tation might more than counterbalance the good expected to result from moving in the matter. But the evil being not of a trifling, but of a serious nature—one in which great interests and great principles were involved-one in which was involved even matters of faith, he would contend it was not wrong to discuss it. " Was there no danger in Tractarianism? Look at it in all its bearings. He would say that it was borne to all parts of this Country on the four winds of Heaven. There were thousands of winged missionaries bearing forth, in a greater or smaller degree, the doctrines of Tractarianism. If Tractarianism had any thing in itself objectionable, any thing obnoxious, then it was the duty of the House to promote the 'truth as it is in Jesus; and they were called upon in their individual as well as collective capacity, when the wisdom and piety of the church was supposed to be endangered, to express their sentiments freely, openly and candidly in reference to that danger. It was for that very purpose the reference proposed to the House of Bishops had been made. It was to be hoped that the House would concur in the motion, so that the truth might go forth to the world with all the power and all the influence every mem ber of this body could give it. He asked if they were not all put in trust of the Gospel, and if it was not their duty to adhere to it and administer it, and oppose every thing contrary to it? Were they not told to contend earnestly for the faith? He trusted he would be able to show that the faith was opposed by Tractarianism. Now, there were multitudes around them who do not believe in it, and they would say, if this church does not, with their united voices, condemn those doctrines, that they are the doctrines of our church. God forbid that we should give them cause to say so. His reverend brethren and himself were sent here to advance the Gospel, and he conceived it was at their peril before high heaven to neglect this all-important duty strongly, fully and fearlessly in reference to the point now at issue. Their ordination Vows required them faithfully to endeavor to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines from the church. * *He was of opinion that this body never had had a subject of such importance-of equal magnitude-before it, except, perhaps, that which arose in 1789, and in the subsequent year, when the Protestant Episcopal church in this country was organized-when all its principles were to be settled-when our Liturgy and all our standards had to be acted upon."-Proceedings, pp. 21, 22. After showing in no less than fifty five particulars, how, according to his apprehension, the doctrines of the Tractarians differed from the views affirmed in the articles of the Episcopal church, he adds— "These fifty five particulars involve at least sixty specifications which constitute the peculiarities of Tractarianism, in all of which it stands opposed to the teaching of our Protestant Episcopal church. Sir, this is a bird's-eye view of the whole system of Tractarianism. This system is rapidly spreading over the whole country; and it is at once decidedly hostile to the principles of our Protestant church and subversive of the whole Gospel. For the proof of this position, Sir, we refer first, to the principles involved in the case of the Rev. Arthur Carey. And secondly, to the language and testimony of Tractarian writers themselves. "1. To the case of the Rev. Arthur Carey. Mr. Carey's sentiments, Sir, are on record. They were known at the time of his ordination. They were written down, and are contained in a document, corrected under Mr. C's own eyes, so as accurately to express his sentiments. "These sentiments were not condemn ed, but approved by the six presbyters who examined, and the Bishop who ordained him; for they concurred in declaring that these views constituted no bar to Mr. Carey's ordination. And all the objectionable points involved in the case have been amply and ably defended in the columns of the New York Churchman. If then, the views of Mr. Carey are hostile to Protestantism, then Tractarianism is hostile to Protestantism, for Mr. Carey's views were identical with those of Tractarianism." "Mr. Carey's ordination we are compelled to condemn, because Mr. Carey was, as we conceive, little less than a Papist in principle. Observe, we impugn no man's motives--none of the individuals concerned in reference to the ordination of Mr. Carey. The doctrinal system of Mr. Carey, we regard, upon a review of the whole matter, sufficiently defines the Papist; for, if a man believes as Mr. C. did, he believed he had in fact renounced Protestantism and embraced Popery, for the system of Tractarianism is but another name for Popery."-Proceedings, pp. 24, 25. The Rev. Dr. Hawks, also, in reference to the alarm and agitation of the church, made the following remarks: "There was no disguising the melanpoints, a diversity of opinion does exist choly fact, that on great and important in the church. Further, that that diversity of opinion had distracted a portion of the church-that there was distraction In consequence of the distracted state of from one end of the church to the other. public opinion in reference to these questions, it would not do for gentlemen here to shut their eyes to the evils complained of. He would assert, that devoted and honest men were differing upon those points, which they deemed serious, grave and important points; and, therefore, if we would, we could not shut our eyes to the imposing and solemn duty which now devolved on this House. He appealed to the clergy and laity-the common love they bore to Christ who redeemed us-to the Holy Spirit that sanctified us— to the church of our fathers—to the church of God-to all that is good, to all that is lovely, to all that is pure and holy, that they would act together as brethren having the same object in view-their own eternal welfare and the extension of Christ's kingdom upon earth. He implored them to lay upon one common altar all their differences-forgetting not that they were commanded, as brethren, to love one another-in order that they might show the church-that they might show the world, that the great governing principle of Christianity was their pre |