%, V^-.-v'k IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V /. fA fA 1.0 [f I.I 1.25 f. IIIIIM us 1^ IIM 2.0 1.4 1.6 6" Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 #^ \ % v ''0^.^ >^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreprodiictions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques ^>\ Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Instiiute has attemptod to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur D Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagda Covers restored and/or laminated/ I I Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde D D D D D n D D Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reii6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lots d'une restauration appai'aissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exempiaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculdes □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es r~~> Showthrough/ \jl1 Transparence Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression I I Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6X6 film^es & nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosiiy of: Anglican Church of Cinada General Synod Archives The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the fast page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — •► (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meining "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: 1 2 3 L'exemplaire filmd fut reprodjit grdce it la gdndrosit6 de: Anglican Church of Canada General Synod Archives Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de I'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim^e snnt filmds en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commen^ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboies suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — •►signlfie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifle "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir de ('angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m^thode. 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 • H ^ c"* . G T H E OriNIONS OF THE PRESS AND LETTERS FROM CORRESPONDENTS, ETC!., KTC. ETC., ON THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN FKANCIS FULFORD, D.D., LORD BISHOP OF MONTREAL, &c., AND THE VEN. ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH, D.D.. LONDON, C.W.: ^„«Tr.„r.T. nv E A TAVr.OR. BOOKSELLER. RICHMOND STREET. THE METROPOLITAN AND ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH. TRACTARIANISM IN CANADA. [From the London, (Eng.) Record, May 23.] We have received the subjoined letter from Archdeacon Hellrauth, whose name will be well known to our readers : [TO THE EDITOR OF THE RECORD.] SlR^_Knowing that very many of my personal friends in " dear old England," as well as others who have so liberally responded to my appeal on behalf of the Huron Diocese, would be glad to hear from me, and finding it impossible from the multiplicity of one's engagements to write to all, you will, I am sure, permit me, .judging from past experience, to make your valuable paper the medium of communication. I reached this country, after a fine passage from Queenstown, in ten days, by the splendid sea-going sfceamer, " Persia,' of which not only the " Cunard Company," but England may well be proud. I lost no time in reporting myself to the Bishop of Huron, telling him in person of the real and heartfelt sympathy so substantially manifested by Evangelical church- men in England towards his diocese. One need hardly say that his heart is much cheered and his hands greatly strengthened by such manifestations. The following is a letter he wrote me after my arrival, and which you are at liberty to publish ; nay, I would consider it a favour, as it is an expres- sion of his sentiments, and of gratitude to those who aided mo in the good cause : — London, C.W.. May 12. 18G2. " My Dear Archdeacon,— I am happy and thankful that in the goo'ou, you did not give that, in advocating the cause whu.lw.«ur„ j^,^;^^,,;,,,, „,,ich it .s rrard^rr'he tlilht P-Lnt and strictiy Evangeiica, .n its teaching. ^ ^ ^^^^.^^ ^^ ^^^^ Archdeacon, " Ever faithfully yours, (Signed,) _^ "BEW. HURON. » The Ven. Archdeacon Hellmuth, &c." J 1 e^r^ +T,P miceess which God has given me I have, however to P-J /ff * J"' The personal" ttack on my character on behalf of the Diocese, of Huron ihe jerso ^^^^^^^ b, " A Presbyter of the Wiocese of M»nUea^^ ^ ^^ ^^.^.^^^^^ ^ are already acquainted, f"''"/'?/" X Atlantic, but rather the reverse, represent any harm on e-ther side of ">«*»» , ^^^^ ^^ ^ Dr. Fulford, the Bishop of Montr al, has smceW^^^ ^^ Metropolitan of issue a "Pastoral" against me, in his new cap y ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ Canada, addressing his "Bishop , and Clergy » ^^ ^^^ England and Ireland in Canada, "" '"f J" "^rf,!, „f the i?6«>r—^ ^^^^ „„d g„„a Bishop, whose Jnthrirrrt:: :i:i z. w.^y, >» >« t^s h„u. or t,,. ■ is aimed, if possible at the can l-^M^ .,„ J„,„ „,„ „,,i„,t us. »<,*« operandi adopted ^^ l^^' ^""l^^.'^j^tha ever occurred to a ..itish infringements of the '"V^^ '*"*> ;„tti„n We nmst look to England, ' • 'T: San'S^s S 1 "rX:: to protect the weak from the "Zough the charges of the Mo^«i*anag..^^^ St-rorerKX bS::e il Xi ^-ed .om the pen of • • » Protestant Bishop, or an Englishman. ^„,., jn question. You are, no doubt, by this time m P«««;™;^f,~ „ Lgland, -) t I understand that a large ™";^»"f J^^ ]>:; *„7l am truly glad of ii* LT^mX^mtl* tKtion we'are in here, in matters tr-tU tvee '^-fi^:^xt::iz:^^:^ with Christ makes his people free ; and rely upon li^^ngth of his people in every time of trouble. Believe me, yours already under obligations, Most faithfullj', • * J. Hellmuth. Quebec, May 23, 1862. THE METROPOLITAN AND DR. HELLMUTH. [TO THB KDITOU OK THE yUEHKC (lAZKTTE.] Mr. Editor,— Chance threw in my way, not many days since, a letter in pamphlet form, addressed " To the Bishops and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada, from Francis Fulford, D.P., Lord Bishop of Montreal, and IMetropolitan." I read it with attention, and, I may add, with surprise. It is a published letter, and therefore undeniably challenges public attention. How the public sentiment may classify this letter I know not; certain I am, however, that few will peruse it without feelings of sorrow and pain. It boots nothing to know which of the characters implicated is right, and which is wrong, the letter will receive an impress irrespective of both of them. The hrorJmre has beon brought out, and is based, as it affirms, upon certain words spoken by Archdeacon Hellmuth, a clergyman long and favorably known in Qixebec, in a speech at a public meeting in London, during tlie last winter. The words objected to are quoted by the writer of the letter himself, as if to preclude error, and stated by him to be as follows = — " He (Dr. Hellmuth) must speak the truth, that evangelical men are at a very great discount in those colonies generally, and that an effort is being made to rear an hierar- chical structure, which he feared would not tend — as is supposed by some — to strengthen the cause of pure Protestant and evangelical truth." The accusation, therefore, is two-fold ; 1st, that evangelical men are at a dis- count in Canada, and 2nd, that a hierarchy is being built up in Canada. Now, is there anything in these charges which rendered it necessary in the Metropolitan — in order to substantiate them — to enter the lists so formid- ably armed, and to exhibit himself to the world so savagely aggressive ? Cui Bono — the long drawn stories to prove that it was the doctor's inten- tion (merely his intention, be it remembered) to " take Mm in.'" Why, the empty vaunt, " that he, the writer, knew Dr. Hellmuth's real character^ and however his astuteness and plausible manner might deceive others, he would not succeed in blinding his lordship." Oh, no indeed ! He, like the doctor, was too astute himself to be imposed upon. Wherefore introduce the episode of the church in Sherbrooke Street at all ? Surely it must appear to the most casual reader of the pamphlet, and on the writer's own showing, that it was a mere misunderstanding, arising, in all probability, from a slight deafness in his lordship, which might have been,and indeed was. at once explained away, and which, had it been " a take in," would not have outlived the meeting between the parties. I rather opine that the " odium, 7«» _ .- ,_ Vila InvjIqViirk lina ovhiV>itprl in cnma WC CI//tytt/7t' yttVtfTtTj TTrtl.V'»i !,»». .._-, .^,-?..,^- ...*.. .,-» .w^r*. • justifies Dr. Hellmuth's remark, " that evangelical men are at a discount, (at leaiit with some) in those colonies," unless, indeed, the feelings were aroused by that much offending institution, " The Colonial Church and School Society," whose quasi representative the doctor is 8ur)p<)Hed to be. I know not that we (laymen, I would add) are bound to take for gospel a'll that the Metropolitan, in his ardent desire to convict, has hurled upon the head of his hapless, unresisting brother clergyman. But what if every word were true ? Hov/ does it in any way invalidate the assertion complained of? On the contrary, I think that if the votes of the whole church were taken, they would substantiate Dr. Hellmuth's tissertion. It is quite true, and therefore quite undeniable, that there is a vast portion of the Church of England in these Provinces deeply tinctmed with the errors of Tractarian- ism, and that the clergy, with bright exceptions, certainly, but few in numbers, head the deadly schism, and snub those who dittcr from them ; or in the words of J)r. Hellmuth, "hold evangelical members of the church " at a very great discount. Tlie Kev. Metropolitan will diiFer from me on this point ; but what his is own estimate ? TiCt him speak for him- self, for ''/as est <.ib hoaU' doceriJ' " E% angelical men,' says his lordship, "may not be as abundant as the Archdeacon wishes, yet he will allow they are to be found in many most important places. The Cathedral at Toronto, and all the churches of Kingston, have been long so tilled ; that at London, three in Montreal, one in Quebec, one in Hamilton— all principal . cities in the Province :" see page 18. Now. sir, this is the Metropolitan's own estimate. T know very little of otherl{>ajti5 of the Province, and can say very little about them; but is it not rcmav":able that to a city of 60,000 inhabi- tants he assigns one eva.ujeUral / .• ., and this without the escape of a groan or a sigh ! Only one evangelical man ! ! He complains of the Arch- deacon's estimate of the evangelical state of the Province, and contentedly, nay, almost boastingly, assigns to Quebec one evangelical man ! In whoBC mind, on reading this letter, will not the complaint of the pot by the kettle immediately arise ! , , • I have already said that public sentiment in Quebec will rather back the Archdeacon as being nearer the truth than his lordship ; be that, however, as it may— for I am not defending him— I think that his lordship, the Metropolitan, might have been more usefully employed than in writing the letter I have ventured to criticise. If the expressions made use of by the Archdeacon in his speech, and so complained of by his Metropolitan, did really require a merited castigation, 1 etnnot conceal from myself— and mayhap public feeling may be found to go with me— that this Metropolitan owed it to his cloth, to his oflBce in the church, and to his standing in society, to have put forth a far more tem- perate statement than the letter can boast— the hot zeal, and it may be exaggerated views, of the Archdeacon might well have beon shown t© be incorrect, without entering on a carping, undignified, ill-natured review of 1.: v-,1-. i:4v T v.^««* nnnniiitla mv rmnflrts hv nhfisrvinc that one feature Ills WllUlC inc. -1- Jltt.t>;i' .•••..--.. ^.v. ,• -f in the pamphlet is very much to be regretted— the Metropolitan has addressed his letter to the Bishops and Clergy of Canada. Why it was 8 necensary to give them the inforinatian whicli the pamphlet •ontainH F know not. for most of them know a great deal more o( the state ot the church and country of (Janada, than his lordship, a comparative stranger among uh Still, it was his pleasure to do so, in all probability that it might appear to the public that he wished to make it a mere family matter. Phis proceeding, whatever was his motive, if carried out, would have taken off the keen edge of his lordship's caustic remarks. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this plan was abandoned, and that the writer forgetful of the admirable French maxim, " On doU laver son huge ml clicz nou$, permitted his publisher to offer it for sale, with a conspicuous advertise- ment attached to the fly-leaf, on bright yellow paper, that copies might be had of him at the modest price of five cents each. Although the nature of the offence given by Dr. HcUmuth is not very discernible, the fact that it has caused unaccountable worry m the wigwam is clear enough, and is suggestive of the truth that the shoe pinches some- where. „ , , . , Your old ac(iuaintance, The Vergir. Quebec, May 24, 1862. I 4 ECCLESIASTICAL DIFFERENCES. [Ki-om the Montreal HeriiUl, May 27. | The Rev. Dr. HeUmuth is well known in this Diocese and in that of Quebec, within the latter of which he acted as Professor of Hebrew at Lennoxville College. He is now Archdeacon of Huron, and Assistant Minister of St. Paul's, London, C. W. Bishop Cronyn of Huron, is well known to belong to what is called the Evangelical School, and as such to entertain strong objections to the teacLings at Trinity College, Toronto, which many evangelicals— at any rate among those of the Diocese of Hu- ron—hold to be of a Romanizing tendency. Bishop Cronya has, therefore, determined to have a College in his own Diocese, and Dr. Hellmuth, who has it appears acquired some fame as a " good beggar," was despatched to England for the purpose of raising contributions. In pursuit of that ob- ject he held a meeting in Islington, at which, according to the report in the Record h gave a lamentable account of the spiritual destitution of the Anglican Church in Canada, as seen from the evangelical point of view. lu fact he declared '" evangelical men to be at a great uiseount in vanaua, and intimated that the hierarchical establishment was likely rather to depress them still lower than to raise them to a premium. Subsequently ^ , f 9 -J-. I 4 1 : f Dr Ilellmuth being appeulcd to ugainst this statement, replied hat he was not rc8po.i8ible for the Record' » words; but thatiii Hubstance they were given with 8ulhcic.it accuracy. Our Metroi)olitan, Dr. Fulford, has under those circumstances publi8hed a pamphlet, and thouRli .t appears there- from that he docs not profess to belong to the evangelical siihool, he stUi thinks probably from the ambiguity in the word employed, that the asser- tion respecting the paucity of evangelicals is a reproach to his bee. He, therefore, repels the charge by showing that there are a very fair share of evangelicals throughout the Province ; but reprobates the idea of making these distinctions. He declares that he and his colleagues in the Kpisco- pate do not know them in the administration of their Dioceses, but regard, as all churchmen ought to regard, every Clergyman who walks within the prescribed limits as a member of the same family. Besides this, however, and without so far as we can see, any immediate connection with the ques- tion as to the greater or lesser number of evangelicals in Canada, the pamphlet contains two distinct accusations against Dr. Hellmuth, intend- ed we presume, to do what in legal phraseology would ue called breaking down his evidence. In the first place it is stated that Dr. Hellmuth, on the part of his father-in-law. General Evans, oflPered Bishop Fulford to contribute a lot of land of the required size, and a gift besides of £3,000 for the 1 urpose of building a Church at Cote-a-Barron ; the sole condition being that Dr. Hellmuth was no be the first incumbent. This offer made verbally could, says the pamphlet, never be obtained in writing, and after several interviews with Dr. Hellmuth and General Evans, the Bishop found that the i.itention of the latter was not to give but to sell the land at half price, the valuation being £800 per acre ; and not to give the £3,000, but to lend it at interest. The General having a " great number of lots, the Bishop says he immediately saw through the whole manoeuvre. 1? or the benefit of General Evans' land, and to enable his son-in-law to settle in IMontreal we were to build a Church for him, which was to be burdened with an exceedingly heavy debt." The other charge is that Dr Hellmuth durin" his English tour, at a meeting on behalf of the Colonial Church and School Society, told the audience respecting a clergyman once settled among them, but now in Canada, that the said clergyman was " a successful labor- er, an able Minister, much and deservedly loved/'-and yet that Dr. Hellmuth had previously to leaving Canada, as Superintendent of the Society " decided that this clergyman must leave his mission, on the ground that he had fallen from grace," "he having signed a document confessing that he had spoken an absolute untruth." There are some other state- ments of an unpleasant though less grave nature. Dr. Hellmuth has ,. J . ... ...ui-i : — U4.+«« +rt +v.a " WnTin " Hft aavs of it: — repiied lO tms pumpmc;- 111 a icnti ^^J v.!^ . — •' I own I feel the injustice of it most keenly, and the more particularly so, as I am by the publication of this Prx.^toral, deprived of anj appeal to 10 an ecclesiastical court in Canada-the supreme judge, whose sentence is and deCer. '''""' '^'"^ '""^ '''"^^^ ^"^ *^^ -^^^ - -~r '' As I am consulting my friends what course is left open for me to vindi cate my character from the cruel and injurious aspersfons oasTul nfe' and upon my father-in-law, General Evans, who is equally impl cal^inTh; grave charge of a "manoeuvre," and '' an attempt to take LTs S^^^^^ you will I am sure, deem it but an act of justice if, through your columns I request the favour of all parties to suspend their judgment o. the o^es' ion a issue, until we have decided what course to adopt Lredrir^^^^ order to obtain that protection and justice tc which every man is ent led * .iniTurwn:riftMr;r SCCLE8IA.ST1CAL DirFERENCES. [From the Montreal Herald, June 3, 1862 ] «o the charges against hin, contained in the ffishon'f ™„,„M ? tT accusations, it will be icniemh<.«H w. • i """"P ' PM'iphlct. These Dr. Hellmuth, in on nncZ wul Lfs foZt'l '^°7^""; t'' '"" ^''■ to " entrap " the Bishop by a manm,i! '^T "'■ ^"^'"^ ^™"''' «»'«'« chBTch for V. Hollmuth the™! " ""'""""g the building of a first place, that GeSEvat was To™ T1"1 '" "'^"^"^m, in the tm»h itwasonly inte^MXrh: "ho^Jw :t f uSd S """' '." ttintin-^'Sna ^rS^Xfct?' !" ^^'^iX in theplace where th Sng w^S tfwr" '■''° "%?" '«»'"»* of that gentleman in effect, tKc wif' a '„!„ "" '" *'>"'"■ '"'' minister of theGospel; all the while ZjuXtuTl' ^"^ 'Tf^^ before he left Canada ,i»,H.,i .!,.» .u .??,"""' f^'^- Hellmuth)had, grace," and must leaToWsmUsio;,' TacT^ut of r^K ""' "?'° '""" coBfwion, told an absolute untru* ^""°«' '''' ''" o™ 'I >> ■i-ti % 11 To th. first of these charge« Dr. Hellmuth opposes in the first place a flat denill by ^hieh he raises the question of veracity between h^niself and the Metro;)oUtan. He says that he told the Bishop all that was mtended Iboiftriand and money in the fi^VT^T'cr l^^^he^skfw^^ support his own statement by circumstantial evidence Thus he a ks why, if he wished to entrap his Lordship, having succeeded in deceiv ng him did he afterwards set him right, as the Bishop says he at last did as to the aeneral's intentions ? But again he denies, even if there was . d ffer- ence between the view taken by the Bishop of the first proposition and the real intention, that this difference was of a nature to jus ify ^ ^ha^g^ ?^ Tuble dealing. Suppose, is his avgume- *^^* ^^-«:^7.^;^^ ^^^^^^^ the first place, that the General was to give u^e ground and £3000 though i did not tell him so, there was no such great variation between this and the fact, as to justify harsh construction; for the pro,ec*at 1^^*, was that Z General should present the land at half price and shou d le.d the £3000 without interest, until the revenue of the Church should afford an f r™lu7whlh overplus was to become a sinking fund for the repayment TtKc^ a^ Tl!ls,says D. Hellmuth, considenng ^^e .mpro^^^^^^^^^^^ of a surplus was not very far from an absolute gift. H^^^^s *»^at tne Church was intended for services in German, French and English, and that fhe retrwhilthe Bishop gave for declining the offer was that the Ger- mansTdnrwantto separate from the other congregations; that there weTe no French hearers, and that there were ChBrches enough for th« English In farther rebuttal of the charge of a manoeuvre and attempt to entrap he appeals to the character of an officer 87 years of age known for honour andTonorable services in all parts of the globe, and to several documenTary assertions of the Bishop's respect for himself, at a period sequent to that of the alleged double dealing. J hese documents consist of a Resolution dated April 8, 1854, moved by Bishop Fulfo da. one of the Corporation of LennoxviUe College, expressing the high Zse'' entertained by the body of the '' services rendered " by Professor Hellmuth, tendering him thanks, and regretting the severance of the con nectbn w th himJf an appointment made jointly by Bishops Mountain and Fulford of Dr. Hellmuth to be a Trustee of LennoxviUe College Lt Jp nled by a note from BisLop Fulford declaring that ^^J^^^-^^ JJeasure in making the appointment, of an ad eundem degree ''"^"Zlt ?h. convocation of the College, when the Bishop must have been P^^^^^^^^ . and of another appointment, by the Bishop, of Dr. Hellmuth to the Presidency of the "Church of England mission to the French speaking popSation in B. N. America," carrying with it the power of selecting the Prindpal of Sabrevois College. Dr. Hellmuth conceives that these marks of respect were inconsistent with the opinion that tne person on .x.o.a they were conferred had been guilty of an attempt to entrap his Ecclesias- tioal guperior. 12 i. tn r!;hfef^^^^^^^^^ -pb- oru.e ..«„ moDient a pious, beloved and aurrlf?! • f ^' ^^^^^^J'^^^n was at the nor words bearing that interpretation. He .plains thnf ',1^ T ''''^''" before the speech in Bngland the Clercrv^n • * ''''""* *^^ ^^'^^8 in the "excitement of a public' meetin. ^ ^ '" 'r?'" '^^^ ^» ^ «P^e«^ by exaggeration," but Tt wLTreZfrhe h?d"' ''' ^'"f' ""^ '^^^-^^ and had been forgiven by his con'rornffn i^. <^^P^^^^ed deep sorrow, Hellmuth says, that an arran~1,7l i ^* """^ *^""^' ^°^«^«r, Dr. from the scene of his/inrZl ?. T"'"" *^^^ S'^"*!^^^" no sooner did his •ongCtCLar of it th nVl""* '"'"^^^ "^^""^^ ' ^"* exception of one famify, Lonst^d ^ /'l l^^™ -f the was retained, and was really, at the moment of hT^ \ ^' gentleman position, and doing the work which 07^!!? J\ '^'f ^' "^"^^^^ ^« ^he some collateral stalmenTof an unp W ^^^^^ -- against Dr. Hellmuth to which he al o repl; an^^ ^'^^^'^^^er go, except, perhaps, with relation to thele^T^s "nt rHi ^^ ?• "^'^ ""'' Montreal Committee of the Continental and rnlf- i « ."'1 o ' ^""^ ^^ *^« Bishop had stated that this CommTte:^^ h L^ir^^^^^^^^^ The be appointed agent for the whole Province wfo/rtl l'"''^^ ^'' *^ that nomination, and so prevented Ufmli • ''^^^^^^^t^ against Montreal. Dr. Hellmuth sals tlv.tff- ^^^^''""^ *^ *^« ^^io^ese of personal objection to h^ ascites the " ^^"^^^^^ - Society in London, from wl' h f^^^^^^ of the in there being no work doing or likelv To h!^ objection consisted TH. BISHOP 0. MONTK..,^.., ,,„h...00N i/ ["'•'"""''Sherbrooke Leader, Jane 6, 1862] .ta.e than to fall under i"{,CLZZ''V'''T:' ''""'' *"» mercy, but the church, though it loX l!.' , '"^ ^''ite misht shew practised it. The e.a^oSioV SK ^t p'V"'"? '"' "'^°°' - • ..v^vxai ciicuis nave been felt f-iMirh+ *u-, ti- VT ""^ic tuese weight or e.„ a Bishop. ^^^X^:':^^:^^^ ' the latter waa at the and that m grace," two years a speech s of truth P sorrow, ever, Dr. entleman ler ; but with the intleman ly in the ;rc were liaracter ^ced not 1 by the ^ The was to against •cese of ^^ed no of the nsisted 3ese of ient. 3tical fc the shew Idom the hese the ther if 13 priest or layman, need no longer dread the horrors of the Inquisition, in this life, or of spiritual torments in ihat which is to come, in consequence of his offence, though it be so great as to incur the anger of the diocesan. I luive been led to Uicsc reflections by the perusal of a pamphlet by Francis FuITovd, b. D., Lord Bishop of Montreal and Metropolian, which, tiioiv^li ));oic'>scil1y iiitended for the Bishops and Clorgy of Ciinjida, has boon, and is publicly sold by the Boolcsellers, and so plenlifully distributed as to become the p-opcviy of the public. The subject of this paniplilot is the Tvcv. J. Hollmutli, D. D., (formerly incumbent of Ibis Parish, as well as pi'ofessor of Hebrew in Bishop's College, Lennoxville, but now Arch- deacon of Huron, and Assistant Ministerof the Cathedvnl, London, C.W,,) and its object is to disprove certain statements made by him at a public meeting in London, England, in January last. The controversy that, some titue ago, existed between the Bishop of Huron and the Bishop of Toronto, on the Eomanizing tendency of the instructions given in the Trinity College, Toronto, will doubless be fresh in the memories of many of your readers, and they will not be surprised to learn that the Bishop of Huron has determined to have a College in his own Diocese, under his immediate control, where he can train candidates for the Ministry whose theological views will be more in accordance with what ho considers to be truly Protestant doctrines, than those inculcated in Triiiily CoD'.'gc. In prosecuting this design he authorized Archdeacon Hell iiiuth to proceed to England for the purpose of soliciting pecuniary assistance from those members of the Church of England whose opinions sympathise with his own. A great meeting of Evangelical Clergy held at Islington, in January last, gave the Archdeacon an opportunity of introducing the object of his visit to England. In advocating his cause he spoke of the great want of Evangelical Clergymen in Canada, and, (we quote the words attributed to him), said :-" Although he should be sorry to say anything which should mar in the slightest degree the happy spirit which seemed to pervade that meeting, yet he could not help observing that there was a very great lack of evangelical men iu those vast colonies ; not that there are not godly, good, and hard-working men, but two few in number for those vast regions which God in His providence has given to this country; he could not hide it — he must speak out the fruth, that evangelical men are at a very great discount in those colonies generally, and that an effort is being made to rear a hierarchical structure, wi^Icu, he feared would not tend, as is supposed by some, to strengthen the cause of pure Protestant and Evange- lical truth," This public utterance of these sentiments has given great offence to some of the Clergy in the Diocese of Montreal, and to the Bishop in particular, who, in order to disprove the statements of the Archdeacon, has pubUshied 14 n pani|)hlet in a style which seems to be more like that of a browbeating barrister than of a meek divine, and will hardly convince the reader that his lordship is renowned for that Christian charity which " tUnketh no All candid Christians will agree with the Bishop in deprecating the pro- pagation or fostering of a party spirit in the Church, but, if his lordship's antecedents had always been in strict accordance with these sentiments they would have fallen with more weight at the present time. I have an impression that the manner in which his lordship introduced and carried some of the most objectionable features of the constitution of the Diocesan Synod, evinced more of a desire to crush all opposing opinions beneath his feet than to allow a fair discussion and a decision according to their merits. And the well known murmurings of the higher clergy when the news reached them that Bishop Fulford had contrived to get himself appointed Metropolitan, too plainly showed that they were not particularly satisfied with the manner in which this was accomplished ; and confirmed in many minds, the suspicion that Bishop Fulford wanted no other party in the church, than that, which, without question would do his bidding, and endorse his individual opinions. I do not think that the majority of the readers of the Bishop's pamphlet will consider th*^ spirit which dictated it was of the most Christian-like kind by the method he has adopted to break down the Archdeacon's evi- dence. What can the charge made against him of endeavoring, some nine or ten years ago, to cheat the Bishop, have to do with proving that evan- gelical clergymen are not so rare in Canada as the Archdeacon says they are ? On the contrary, does it not strike the reader that the Bishop has been guilty of great dissimulation during that long course of years. Why, if he thought the Archdeacon so capable of deceit and low cunning; if he thought " Mb influence likely to he so injurious,'^ did he not, as a faithful bishop, warn the church and public against him ? Why has he, during that long period, so often met him on the same platform, sanctioning his presence amongst his clerical brethren, presiding at the various religious meetings in which he has taken a very conspicuous part ? But does uot the Bishop himself betray the cause of his animosity to the Archdeacon on page 14 of his pamphlet, in the following words : — " I remember that just after I had been notified that I was about to be appointed to this bishopric, but before the appointment was made public, I saw a paragraph in the newspaper stating that the Rev. J. Hellmuth was to be the bishop. He was quite a stranger to me, even by name, at the time, but I naturally innuired in liondon what this announcement meant^ and I was informed that his name had never been mentioned to the authorities who then had the management of this matter, and that, consequently, no such appoint- ment had been contemplated." Has not the impression produced by the 15 siglit of this paragraph been the principal cause of the Bishop's jealous ex- clusion of Dr. H. from his diocese rather than the few words uttered by the Archdeacon at the Islington meeting, for : " Trifles light as air, Are to the jealous, confirmations strong, As proofs of holy writ." I Opine that the Bishop's very recent proof (mentioned on page 12) that he is not wrong to place any reliance upon the Archdeacon's testimony ^U, upon examination, prove to have a foundation so infinitesimally small as to be only seen by the jaundiced eye of prejudice, if seen at all. THE METROPOLITAN AND ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH. ( !.» [TO TUX BJDITOR Ot THE 8HEBB00KB LKADER.] Sherbrooke, 10th June, 1862. Sir, — The publicity now given to the quarrel or controversy between the Lord Bishop of Montreal and Archdeacon Hellmuth, and the general interest it has produced, have led me to look into the Bishop's Pastoral and Dr, Hellmuth's letter, somewhat carefully. It is painful that a merely personal matter should have been obtruded on the public attention, and I cannot discover a single praiseworthy motive for this appeal to public opinion, from the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church, except I assume that the dispute has a broader basis, than mere personal differences. It seems as if some motive is concealed which the Bishop, as the assailant, will not make public. That motive must be powerful indeed which causes him to constitute public opinion the tribunal of arbitrament, and which ignores the entire machinery of church or ecclesiastical discipline. It seems, at least, this is the ostensible reason given by the Bishop, that Dr. Hellmuth's remark in England, while speaking in behalf of the claim of the Diocese of Huron for a Theological Institute, independent of Trinity College, Toronto, for the training of young clergymen, is the cause for this unseemly controversy. And it would also seem that the doctor repre- sents, or is thought to represent, a section of the Church, designated Evangelical, and which does not apjjear to find much favor with Bishop Fulford. Whatever be the cause of this quarrel— and if merely personal, it should never have been paraded by the Bishop for the public gaze— -it has elicited, on the part of Dr. Fulford, a spirit, wholly unworthy of the position he holds as Metropolitan. It is with this I have chosen to deal. And as the Bishop's letter, though only addressed to his " Rev. and Rt, Rev. Brethren," is on sale, and has been widely circulated, it has become 16 ... V t. r.e /.vitir^isni I care, and the public care, little for a legitimate subject of «"*^« «™- /, 7;.' .^^ notice. I find that such ecclesiastical quarrels if '^^ J^f^^^^g 'i^'^Ieneratin, feelings of envy, controversies, as a rule, are "^^"^ /^^^^^^ /" f^l^ ^.^^.^ery liltle to the S'd~ ^r r ^ ch^t ^t^, toward^ the e.ati^ piety, prudence, oi nuu u^n+lipvlv feelin". It is one thing to ^r rrwtTh:re;wX^ev e'Xl'MetroHitan. ca.plo by such r ;"alt 'the public, which is, I am sorry to say .„ no «av ^ n consonaneewith christian character V°t''J^t oT for the sale o^f family has its skeleton, so has every church ; and it only lor the sake oi Sy these skeletons shonid be kept only for the '=»"te'"lf , ™ "^ *"' Son if the community to which they belong. Now, Dr. Ilellmu* may rlrthodoxo heterodox iu the estimation of the Metropolitan. He may te uTcteh, or low church, or traotarian. That rs h.s own affair, not mine «. long as he is amenable to the spiritual courts oi his church. But rhHhTef executive of that church h.s seen right to "Pf »' ^;^''™'t tribunal for sake, I am sorry to add, of crushing Dr. Hellmuth m ;uMirestlmation,'.nd destroying his ebaracte. Host w,^",^|: ™t ■ e come to any other conclusion, most readily would I, if tie alternative we e Zn me! infer that Bishop FuUbvd is guilty of an -^-^ 7, ^" ^ ' Tat his sense of affectionate duty to a brother clergym.m, whom he sup- nosed ha^e spoken or acted erroneously, was warped by some other motive Taf bittrperl^^^^^^ For it is impossible, from the evidence on he fa^e of [he Bishop's letter, and that supplied internaUy, suppose Sat he a ted from kindly feelings to Dr. Hellmuth Surely the c^i was not of such magnitude, that its redress could not have lain over till The meeting of the Synod or were the feelings of ^he Bishop towards tdrorof such animUouB character, that hecoud not broo^ of a couDle of months, and address his clergy collectively ? I cannot : si^the LtL except in so far as it is supplied by his lett-, jn^^^^^ - latter 1 reKret to say does nQt leave an impression m favour of the Bishop ^^XT The language, while tioselled and intei arded with fxcellent ^iritual and religious extracts, is not that of a christian dignity, r^rt^^^^^^^^^ brother in a spirit of affection. Perhaps the Doctor s alleged I crime !Jhe assertion that evangelical clergymen were scarce in Canada, I crime, uie aoo ^ ^ ^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^ comnlection as to or rather m tiie i/iocusu ui xxuivu,— "- *- - «„„:„„ be cognizable in a spiritual court, and therefore not susceptible of pains aud SL." But a subtle mind would readily suggest the easy alter- \ } If ^1^ 17 native. Dr. Hellmuth is not only a clergyman, but a citizen, a husband and father, and as such he owes and discharges civil duties to society. If the Doctor's character as a clergyman were damaged by the letter of his Metropolitan, society would be led into the ready inference, that the man who offended in one point,— who was guilty of what some regard as the greater immorality, would not hesitate to violate his allegiance to the civil institutions of the country. If the Bishop succeeded in degrading the Doctor, by his letter or pastoral, he would also be degraded in the eyes of his children and friends ; and what an inheritance of shame was he providing for the offspring of the Doctor ; what a legacy to blush for would be left to his descendants. Perhaps Bishop Fulford did not foresee such consequences, when he indited his letter. I do not think he did, as a little reflection would have suppressed that letter altogether. As society now exists ;' as the religious, moral and civil elements are combined,— and thank God for the combination,— an oftence against one is an offence against all. No man can be injured in his religious aspect without suffering in his cival capacity. If the spiritual Courts were powerless to reach Dr. Hellmuth, the Bishop, in my opinion, did not evince much toleration, when he transferred the case to public opinion. This is a tribunal, which will give its verdict with impartiality, little influenced by mitres or cassocks ; and it is fortunate for Dr. Hellmuth that he is to be tried in this Court. Of course the Bishop has his coadjutors, his echoes, always ready to sub- scribe to the dictates of authority. Of these, " A Presbyter of the Diocese of Montreal," alias the Rev. George Slack, is the most prominent. His letter to the London Becord is below contempt: its perusal leaves the im- pression that the author is an ecclesiastical Bravo, a clerical parasite, con- victed by Dr. Hellmuth's reply of falsehood ,>hich if not deliberate, owes its only extenuation— and that a pitiful excuse— to malignant ignorance. I have reviewed this controversy in general terms ; if you give me space hereafter I will analyze the Bishop's letter, and exhibit more fully the spirit in which it is written. Layman DR. HELLMUTH AND THE BISHOP OF MONTREAL. [Trom the St. John's, N. B., Church Witness, June 4, 1862.] The Rev. Dr. Hellmuth — a gentleman who is well and favorably known in this city — has strougiy excited the ire of the Bishop of Montreal and of a Presbyter of that diccese, by some remarks which he made at the Islington Clerical Meeting in January last. ^he Presbyter published 18 an angry letter, about six weeks ago, vilifying the Rev, gentleman in unmeasured terms, to which he replied, disposing efFectually of the petty charges which had been urged against him. Bishop Fulford, however, does not appear tc have been satisfied with it, for he has addressed a long letter to the " Bishops and clergy of the Church of England in Canada," on the subject, which is copied in extenso in the last niimber of the Hali- fax Church Record. The offensive statement of Dr. Hellmuth is as follows : — •* Although he should be sorry to say anything which should mar in the slightest degree the happy spirit which Beemed to pervade that meet- ing, yet he could not help observing that there was a very great lack of evangelical men in those vast colonies — not that there are not godly, good, and hard-working men, but too few in number for those vast regions which God in His Providence has given to this country ; he could not hide it — he must speak out the truth, that evangelical men are at a very great discount in those colonies generally, and that nn effort is being made to rear a hierarchical structure, which he feared weuld not tend, as is supposed by some, to strengthen the cause of pure Protestfint and evan- gelical truth. The object of his mission to this country was (he contin* ued) to raise funds for the establishmemt of a sound evangelical college, from which men are to be sent forth to proclaim the Gospel of Christ in all godly simplicity and fullness ; and he trusted, as this is the very first effort of the kind to establish a thoroughly Protestant theological college in the colony, evangelical men will effectually help this good cause." The Bishop touches very lightly upon the subject of the controversy respecting Trinity College, Toronto. He says he is not sufficiently mas- ter of it to enter into any detailed review of it, "which, while it might for sufficient reasons be now expedient for me, is for my present purpose not necessary." Here is the weak point in the Bishop's argument. It was the erroneous teaching at this College which had led the Bishop of Huron to desire the erection of a College in his Diocese, and to send his archdeacon to England to solicit funds. As metropoliton Bishop, he should be a perfect master of the controversy in question, and be able to give a definite opinion upon it for the guidance of the Church at large. The College has been openly charged with teaching doctrines which the Church of England repudiates, and it is not satisfrctory to find the Metro- politan viewing the matter with indifference. Dr. Hellmuth, however, appears to include ihe Diocese of Montreal in his bill of indictment, and of course Bishop Fulford draws the sword at once. He attacks the Doctor in rude terms, deprecates his character, insinuates that he endeavoured '* to take hin in " in reference to a proposal for building a church, chaiges him with hypocrisy or something worse, and congratulates himself on h's discernment m having found him out He is evidently very angry ; and writes in a style very unlike what we should expect fro.~u a Bishop of the Church of England. As such, he should " speak evil of no man," much less openly arraign a brother minister before the world in the style I » leman in he petty however, 3d a lon^ Canada," the Hali- ith is as 1 mar in lat meet- t lack of lly, good, ; regions jould not it a very is being end, as is md evan- le contin* I college, Christ in irery first il college ase." ntroversy titly mas- it might t purpose ment. It Bishop of send his lishop, he )e able to at large, vhich the be Metro- however, nent, and le Doctor leavoured h, cha; ges slf on t's igry; and 3Qp of t«e in," much the style 19 of a pettifogging attorney. But, curiously enough, he admits, ln»^^«[- tently we presume, the truth of Dr. Hellmuth's main assertion. He "^^'ETangelical men, as such, may not bo as abundant as t^^ ^l^^Meaco^^ wishev yet he will allow they are to be found in many most important ;^aces.' ke cathedral at TorLo and all the churches - K-?^ton h-^^ long been so filled ; that at London, three in Montreal, one m Quebec, one in Hamilton— all principal cities m the Province." These very exceptions prove the rule. ?,'^«,/^'^"f ^'«;i^^Sf SSf Quebec-on/in Hamilton-^/.r.e in Montreal ! How absurd m Dr. Hell- muth to say that EvangeUcal men were at a discount in Canada Ihe concluBion we arrive at is that the Bishop has committed a grave mistake TwruSng This letter, and that Dr. Hellmuth's character will not be mju- riously affected in the smallest degree by it. [From the St. John's, N.B., Church Witness, Jnne 11, 1862.] Dr. Hellmuth has published the following brief reply to the indict- ment preferred against him by the Bishop of Montreal :— Tto the editors of the echo.] » ^ LoNDOif, May 12, 18G'2. Dear Sirs -In your last issue, under the head of ''New Publica- tions "I see an editorial notice of - A Letter to the Bishops and Clergy of the United Church of England and I-l-^^/^^anada from Franc^ Fulford, D.D., Lord Bishop of Montreal, and Metropolitan This PaXraHs widely circulated, a copy of which has ^^^l^^^/f^^^^^^-jj^ Tl am personuily attacked and my character defamed. Whether I look upon myself as L ofticer of the Church of God, or m any other relaUon of life as a member of Society, as a husband and a father— to be thus < nub iclV denounced and condemned before the Church and the world at We (uSrd by any tribunal), and that by the highest ecclesiastical fSonTy rthe^ountry. I own I feel the injustice of it ^^ost keenly Ird mo^e%articularly i as I am by the pubhcation of ^^^P^^^l^^ d^nrived of any appeal to an ecclesiastical court m Canada-the supreme and the world as my accuser and defamer As 1 am consulting my friends what course is left open i.- me to vin dicate my character from the cruel and injurious aspersions cast upon me and up^Imy father-in-law, General Evans, who is equally implicated n the XeTharge of a "manceuvre," and an "attempt to teke his lordship in ''^you wSri am sure, deem it but an act of justice if through your ^\ jo'i r\_. 1 .u, fJ.. of oil nartJAs to ausoeud their judgment on ■ tr^°.:UnTS;runtTw1 tr^^^ ^^^ eou.se -to idop. for >1 20 redress, in order to obtftin that protection and justice to which evory man is entitled. ^ I am confident that the wisdom of the old adage, " audi alteram partem,'' will be fully borne out in this case. I remain, dear sirs, Your humble obcdinnt servant, J. Helmuth D.D., ArrlxJenrnn nf Huron, and assistarf Minister, St. Puui's Cathedral, London, C. W. "We received yesterday, after the above was in typo, a copy of a letter from Dr. Hellmuth to the Bi«.hop of Montreal, in reply to the charges which his lordship has brought against him: It is written in a calm and christian style, and in this respect affords a striking contrast to the Pastoral of Dr. Fulford. But it also affords a thorough vindication ? A I' ^^®'™"^" ^ character. The circumstances referred to by his lordship and magnified by him to such enormous proportions, are explained m the easiest and simplest manner. All the charge», in fact, are thoroughly refuted, as we expected they would be. The position of the Bishop 18 now by no means an enviable one. He desired to crush a brother minister, but has been foiled in the attempt. He will probably remember in future the advice given in holy writ, "Go not forth hastily to strike, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame." ^ M ^ » * THE BISHOP OF MONTREAL AND DR. HELLMUTH. [From the St. John's N. B. Church Witness, June 25.] The Bishop of Montreal has published a second letter to "the Bishops and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland in Unada, on the subject of his controversy with Dr. Hellmuth. It is in the shape of a rejoinder, but it does not improve Lis Lordship's position m the least ; on the contrary, it makes him appear in rather a worse light than he did before. Dr. Hellmuth has given strong documentary evi- dence, which could not be gainsayed, in disproof of the charges broufeht against him and clearly established the purity of his motives and actions. borne slight acknowledgment of error- some slight expression of reere* for the injury unintentionally committed, was surely, therefore, to have been expected from his Lordship. But not a word of the kind appears. He reiterates, in fact his charges, without adducing any fresh evidence to support them, and all this out of a desire to further "the cause of truth " It IS a contemptible proceeding, and we do not hesitate to say so On the appearance of this " second letter.' Dr. Hellmuth nubl5«li«.l o reply to It. He examines the Bishop's statements in detail, again n futes > i f s^ 21 jvory man ft alteram ).D., Minister, U.W, ipy of a ]y to the itten in a ; contraat ndi cation ) by his ions, are a, in fiict, osition of ) crush a probably ih hastily ehen thy TH. "the eland in It is in position rse light ary evi- brought actions, f regrp* to havti appears, ience to truth." lishsd & 1 refutes > I ♦ * 1 > ^ . f them, or gives a satisfactory explanation of them, and thoroughly relieves his character from the aspersions cast upon it by iiia Lordship. The Bishop of Montreal has thus signally failed in his attempt to luin the character of Dr. PToUmuth. He anticipated an easy victory, but has been disappointed. The hlow he aimed has recoiled upon his own head, and he, no doubt, now bitterly regrets that he ever stood forward as the Archdeacon's accuser. On behalf of the laity of the Church in these Colonlt-s, we thank Dr. Hellmuth for the rebuke he has adininisteri'd to an arrogant Prolate. The controversy directly concerns the clergy, but indirectly the laity also. If the Metropolitan had succeeded in crushing the Archdeacon, a danger- ous precedent would have been established, and other Bishops who reign in narrower spheres would probably have been encouraged to follow his example. But we now venture to predict that pastoral letters, full of malice and uncharitablenqss, will be rare in future, and for this we are indebted to Dr. Hellmuth. ARCHDE/VCON HELLMUTH AND THE METROPOLITAN. [From the London Free Pvcbs, Juno, 1862.J Archdeacon Hellmuth has published a reply to the charges brought against him by the Metropolitan, in his recent " letter" addressed to " the Bishops and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada." "We have received a copy of the Reply, and observe that the Archdeacon takes up all the charges one by one, giving what we consider to be a clear, straightforward, and satisfactory answer to each. At the outset of his pamphlet he meets the strictures of the Metropolitan upon the state- ments reported as made by him in England regarding the Church in Canada, by showing that his Lordship gives an unfair account of the speech com- plained of, and this he proves by giving a copy of the speech in an appendix, with that of some correspondence tencfing to explain his real meaning. It appears from comparing his Lordship's letter with these documents that he has selected a few passages on which to found a charge, taking no notice whatever of others which show the Archdeacon's real meaning to be alto- gether difterent to what his Lordship infers. Those of our readers who have seen the Metropolitan's letter, will remem- ber that its chief object seems to be to throw imputations on the Archdeacon's private character, and hold him up as a person upon whose integrity no reliance could be placed. He is first accused of deceiving the Christian Knowledge Society, by inducing them to grant a sum of money towards the erection of a Theological College in the Diocese of Huron, on a false kT T f-rt i^\r\ r%^*r\ .-.4- <-i'a> xD reply, tuc AfcLdcacoti coiis both the Secre- tories of the Society to witness that he stated to them the very facts which ^ 22 rn^tcn the C1UU-.0 of •; !-X- i Iw oLo EVH..: in tbo mat...- of the proposed Church in «»-''\''-""''^;^, , ^ ;,fi '^ , ng >vishodfor, and wa. very Lst condusivoly that such '^ '"'^ J''^^, ^'V ...ertt it was inl^.ulod, huWo- ^uch needed-that the Gc.u a s t^ wl , c u .^^ ....^.^uenco ot no quently 1.^ tl,e c-^"";;'; > '^,£5 J Jod h. thoir ow.. hu.guaj^^e and ;vP-i«ion , OK I., lo f<.i- tj^^ ^^ a ;^l i,telf appointed tlu. lncnnibe.it. he tbatbndthechu,v.l.eenbult,andhenun^ ^^ ^ ^^ lula have Buffc- I a pecumary 1«J« j'y/''^': ?;, ^imri than the now church could have afforde*^^^^^^^^^ ^^.^^Vi.n with General by the MetropoHtan against the ^J^^^J^'J^^^^iiaing the church, falls, wc /vans' proposition to advance ^^l^^^^^^^^^^^^ think, completely to the groun h J[»;^.J^^^f^3 ^^^, ^ was to be only a loan stated that the money was a gitt, and a^U^^w ^^.^^,^^^^,„ ,,,tes that he come to. „ , . ,„„ x^ tu„ <.onchiRion that nothing but the On this point wc are really dnven to the ^^"«^^^^^^^^^ . ^^^^^ the Metro- ence he had of the Archdeacon Bcondua^^^^ J ^^ ^^^o,, of his having confidence m b. f fJ^^J^^^^^^ '.^he year 185l). he acted as occasions subsequent to the perx. ^^^^^^^ ^^ l^ , isk he himself if the Archdeacon enjoyed his fii-- '^'j^^f^^^^ J by the Corporation niovedaresolutionexpressingth.b,. ..^ns^^ ^,^^ Archdeacon to that of Bishops' College of the servivC* _ ^ ' "^^ J^ ^ ^ rr,[^],^^ of Quebec, he institution. In t^esame year iv: -^,T "'»°^^ ^^ ^^^^ous other occasion, appointed him a Tmtee of ^^.l^.a^on's ^lly. he treated the latter m Xh are all set forth m f;^\^^^ J Ve had the most perfect con- such a way aB would lead ^oi^^'f'^^^,^^ fact, staring him in the face, fidence in his character. ^P^^ Jf ' ?'"''Xthe neiiod referred to he was bis Lordship now affirms that f^^^^/^^,^^^^^^^^^ « designing and laboring unSer the impression ^^^«*J^^^^^^^^^^^ deceitfuV and altogether unworthy f ««^fi^^;^?' Archdeacon, of speaking With reference to the charge «^-ar\y two yearn nft«r th»^ period v. lion ho cotumitted tho otriMico nlludod to; and, to use tho Archdea con's own words, — " With these fficln within my knowler .relieving that the charge advanced by the Metropolitan can noW -o an unprejudiced mind, furnish even a reasonable ground of suspicion that the Archdeacon's character is what he represents it to be. The charge resolves itself into an attempt to entrap the Metropolitan and " take him in" — and as it is entirely founded on statements concerning the erection of the church in Sherbrooke Street, all other subjects introduced into the " letter" may be regarded as mere make-weights. The Metropolitan asserts that the Archdeacon, at their first interview, stated that General Evans was to ''give" £3,000 for the erection of a church, and that at a subsequent meeting he said that the money was only to be a *' loan," without interest. The Archdeacon, in his *' reply," gives this statement an unquali- fied denial. He says that he distinctly remembers explaining the real condi- tions at the fii-st interview, and points out that it was he himself who, by th« Metropolitan's own admission, set the latter right on the subject, before any decision had been come to. Our readers will see at once that the Bishops and Clergy of Canada are placed in the disagreeable position of having to decide on the veracity of two of the dignitaries of their own church. The case stands thus: — The Metropolitan and the Archdeacon had an intei-view together, without wit- nesses. They give an account of the essential parts of that interview so entirely contradictory, that either One or the other must be stating a deliberate untruth. How are their biethren in the ministry to come to a decision ? Are they, on the mere unsupported assertion of one man, to concign a brother clergyman to the odium of having entered into a base conspiracy to deceive his own Bishop, where the interests of the church were deeply involved. Suppose they were to take this course, utterly repugnant, as it is, to the first principles of justice, how could they explain the conduct of the Metropolitan, subsequent to the period at which the affair in question occurred ? Let it be remembered that this was in the year 1851 — that is eleven yeai-s ago. The Metropolitan distinctly states that it was this circumstance that induced him to foiTO the low opinion which he expresses of the Archdeacon in his " letter." It was certainly to have be^n expected that during the last eleven years the Metropohtan, if he did not publicly express his disapproval of the Archdea- con's character, would, at least, have carefully avoided any act that would imply confidence — and yet, strange to say, he appears to have been heaping the highest honors on him, and giving what the public must have considered to be the strongest proofs of confidence in his character. It is very fully shown in the Archdeacon's reply — 1st. That itie Metro- politan concurred in placing him in the divinity chair of Lennoxville! 2nd. That he moved a resolution thanking him for his services, and regretting his departure from the college. 3rd. Thai he appointed him a trustee of the college, and wrote to him a letter, staling that it afibrded him much pleaaurc to do so ! ! 4th. That he concurred in conferring upon him the degree of D. D., in Lennoxville 1 ! 5th. That, in conjunction with the corresponding committee of the Colonial Church and School Society for the Diocese of 26 Montreal, he appointed the Archdeacon President of the Sabrevois Mission, and left to him to appoint the Principal of the college for the education of French youths. All these public acts of the Metropolitan were calculated to mislead the Bishops and Clergy, and to induce a belief on their part that both the Bishops of Quebec and Montreal placed entire confidence in the Archdeacon — other- wise, why, for eleven yeai-s, did they heap upon him every honor they had it in their power to confer? The Bishop of Huron, for instance, who had little or no acquaintance with the Archdeacon, must have relied upon those public proofs of confidence, esteem and respect evinced towards him by the two Bishops, who knew most of his character, and who were brought into frequent contact with him regarding college matters, &c. At length, how- ever, the Metropolitan lays aside the mask he has worn for so many years, and declares that all the time, while he was conferring honors upon the Archdeacon, and appearing to repose every confidence in his character, he believed him to be a designing and deceitful man — remarkable for astuteness, (that is, craft and subtlety), and one who had deliberately conspired te " entrap," and " take in" his own Bishop on matters relating to th4-ehurch. We leave the public to say which horn of the dilemma the Bishops and Clergy of Canada ought to choose. THE METROPOLITAN AND ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH. [Prom the Echo, June 19, 1862.] We give insertion to a letter by a Churchman, in which exception is taken at the manner in which we introduced to our readers the late pamph- let of the Metropolitan. The writer is one of the most prominent Lay- men in the city of Quebec, and one with whom, on most points, we believe that we entirely agree. We certainly cannot reproach ourselves with any such intention as he seems to impute to us. We promptly inserted the Archdeacon's answer to the personal attacks of Mr. Slack, and also his letter on receiving the Metropolitan's Pastoral, and we fully intended, as we have ■ done, to announce the publication of the Dr.'s pamphlet. We felt that the Archdeacon was the only man who could answer the Pastoral, and that he has done so to the peifect satisfaction of his own Diocesan and numerous friends, appears to be unmistakeable. The controversy was, from the first, mixed up with much of a personal kind, as appears from a perusal of the letter and reply from the pens of the Metropolitan and Archdeacon. At a Clerical meeting of Evangelical Clergymen, at London, Dr. Hellmuth makes certain statements, which have -J -J :- iiiLTSVi.u.y appcaicu in uui pages ill ICf/ij, CU-J iTiWJV'l that the Archdeacon is unworth)' of credit, on the ground of cei-tain things of which his Lordship is cognizant, which happened some yeai-s before. D 26 This is met by the AwWeaconwilh counter statements, a^^ by an appeal to his p^t life. And there the matter rests. The ArcTideacon satisfies his own Bishop and his friends. . ^. ■, .^ We are not prepared for quite so sweeping a statement as that which the Archdeacon save to the Clergy at Islington, but we think that no one can m?fhe pToledings of the lal^meeting'-of the Ontario Synod, or the present able document of the Bishop of Huron, without arriving at the conviction Sther^Tfoundationfor the remarks of Dr. Hellmuth, especially with reference to Trinity College, Toronto. According to the hint given by us, we have seen with pleasure that the Halifax Chuich Record has signified his intention of printing the Arch- deacon's answer in full, and we trust that our contemporaries the Ontario Episcopal Ganette and N. Y. Church Journal will do hkewise. The Halifax Record says .— « We now give to our readera the reply of the Archdeacon, and in com- pliance with his expressed wish, shall suspend our judgment until he shall have full opportunity to obtain the redress he claims, and it wiU be most satisfactory to be relieved of all suspicion, and to learn that he has been mis- understood by the Bishop. If this can be done by Dr. HeUmuth, we are bound to afford him every facility to remove the stigma which the letter to the Bishop and Clergy has fastened upon him. If ho cannot disprove the things therein laid to his charge, it is clear that he ought not to continue at the post of honour to which he has been advanced by his Diocesan. Until a Clergyman is condemned at the proper tribunal, he must be held to be innocent in the eyes of the Church. No mere assertion of an indivi- dual can be regarded as a pi oof of guilt. This is a truth which may not m the height of personal feeUng or personal prejudice for a moment be lost sight of We have penned these few lines with the deepest sorrow at the nSjessity which has called them forth. We look upon the present contro- versy as one of the most painful events which has occurred m our branch ot the Church. May God in his infinite mercy over-rule it to His glory. [to the editors of the echo.] Gentlemen,— I have not observed in the columns of th e Echo any no- ticeofthe annual meeting of the Colonial and Continental Church Society held last month in Londo^l, though some account of it has appeared m one of our secular papers, and I therefore send you an extract showing that the Society has elevated the Yen. Archdeacon Hellmuth to the honourable ofiice of Vice President, and in announcing his withdrawal speaks in high terms of his services. I have no doubt you will publish it as likely to be inter- esting to the Archdeacon's numerous fi-iends. 1 observe that you occasionally receive remonstrances from your friends, with reference to the course you think it advisable to pursue, in the manage- w.««f r.f i\M^ w^T,n • nrtA vnii will nfii-hatis nermit one who has been a subscri- ber to it since its commencement, and who claims the title of its well-wisher, to offer a few words of friendly remonstrance on the notice that lately ap- peared in your columns, of the letter of the Lord Bishop of Montreal, with > i ' 27 refereuce to Archdeacon Hellmuth. I co»M r » I / 29 ^ ^ I / phlet, mainly made up of a yiolent personal attack on the Arch- deacon, apparently designed to break down his character as a cler- gyman, a christian and an honorable man. In the first place, he wrote to the Archdeacon, asking him if the Record had correctly reported what he had said. Dr. Hellmuth, in reply, referred the Bishop to a state- ment lie had addressed to the Record, in reply to a letter on the subject by " a Presbyter ot the Diocese of Montreal." He admitted that the substance of his speech was given with sufficient accuracy. He added, however-—" I am unable now to recail the ipsissima verba used by me at Islington, but I certainly intended my remarks to apply to Upper Canada, as may be con- clusively gathered from the fact that I made reference only to Trinity Col- lege, Toronto, the teachings of which I certainly believe (with my vener- able Bishop) to be dangercus in a very high degree." This explanation or limitation, did not satisfy Bishop Fulford, and he proceeded to write down the Archdeacon in a sixteen-page pamphlet. The main questions, raised by Dr. Hellmuth— the paucity of Evangelical clergymen in the Anglican Church in Canada, and the tractarian tendencies of Trinity College — he only lightly touches upon. Upon the " controversy agitating the We&- tern Dioceses respecting Trinity College," he says he is " not suffioiently master of this subject in its present state to enter into a detailed review of it." As regards the paucity of " Evangelical men," he says, "the Arch- deacon will allow they are to be found in many most important placed ; the Cathedral at Toronto and all churches at Kingston have long been filled ; that at London, three in Montreal, one in Quebec, one in Hamilton : all principal cities in the Province." The Metropolitan's reckoning of evan- gelical men is not expressed in very lucid terms ; nevertheless, it rather corroborates than contradicts the Archdeacon's assertion. But although his ostensible purpose was to repeal Dr. Hellmuth's "unwarranted attack upon the Canadian Church and Canadian institutions," Bishop Fulford pauses in his work of defending the church and its institutions, and laun- ches out in an unmeasured onslaught on Dr. Hellmutii himself, prefacing it with the remark that if the Archdeacon is " the type of what is to be considered as an Evangelical man," he (the Metropolitan) has never given encouragement to men of such a stamp. He brings two leading charges against Dr. Hellmuth, to establish for him the character of " a designing and deceitful man," one in whose truth and or integrity no coufidence should be placed, and he backs these up with a number of other statements, all tending to confirm the unfavourable conclu- sions which would be arrived at, if the main charges were substantiated. The first implicates not only Dr. Hellmuth himself, but his father-in-law, General Evans, an aged and much respected resident of Montreal. He states in substance that, some ten years ago. Dr. Hellmuth waited upon him and informed him that the General was willing to build a church, at an expense 30 of £3,000. on some land of his in Sherbrooke-street, the only condition he appended to the offer being, that Dr Hellmuth should be the first incum- bent. The Bishop said he wished the proposition put in writing, but Dr. Hellmuth told him that this was not necessary, that the General was a great invalid and did not wish to be troubled about it, and that the Bishop might decide everything, provided he (Dr. H.) was the first incumbent. Next morning the Bishop called upon the General, but could get nothing ■ from the General or Dr. Hellmuth, except the same general statement that everything would be left to him to do as he liked. At a subsequent interview, Dr. Hellmuth having spoken of advancing another £1,500 as a loan, if necessary, the Bishop remaked that they might contrive to build a plain, useful church for the £3,000, havii>y the site also ; but, if they had a debt of £1,500, besides being a drag upon the congregation, they could not have it consecrated. Upon which Dr. Hellmuth said, " Oh ! but the General is not going to give his three thousand pounds ; he will advance it on security of the Church for a time, without interest ; and let you have the land, which he values at £800 an acre, at half price." " I immediately," says the Bishop, " saw through the whole manoeuvre. For the benefit of Gen. Evans' land, and to enable his son-in-law to settle in Montreal, we were to build a church for him. which was to be burdened with an exceedingly heavy debt. And again, I had been prepared to enter heartily into the plan, until I found that the whole business was an attempt to take me in." Now, we venture to think that this is not the inference which would gene- rally be drawn even from the Bishop's own version of the transaction. According to his own showing, as soon as Dr. Hellmuth perceived that the Bishop appeared to be laboring under a misapprehension, he lost not a moment in clearing it up by explaining that the £3,000 was not to be a gift, but a loan, not to bear interest for a time. For Dr. Hellmuth to have planned the scheme imputed to him, would have shown him to be pos- sessed of a measure of silliness beneath contempt, instead (Jf the " astute- ness " for which the Bishop gives him credit, for he could not but have known that the Bishop would have at any time felt himself at liberty to repudiate the arrangement, as soon as he discovered that he had been led into it through false pretences. Dr. Hellmuth might, therefore, have almost left the Metropolitan's statement on this point to answer itself. He refers to it, however, at some length, in his published reply to Bishop Fulford's letter, and appears to clear up the whole afl"air in the most satis- factory manner. He says the desire of General Evans was to have a church in which English, French and German services might be regularly carried on, according to the ritual of the Church of England, and that in addition to the General's natural wish that he (Dr. H.) should be settled near him, he knew that his acquaintance with some of the modern languages would qualify him for the office. The General oflFered a site at half-price, and I 1 n 81 proposed advanelftg t)ie £3,000 on the following condition : if, after paying the clergyman's salary and contingent expenses of the church, there should be any overplus of income, it was to be applied to form a sinking fund for ultimately repaying the £3,000, no interest being charged in the interim. This condition, he says, he remembers distinctly having explained to the Bishop at the first interview he had with him on the subject, and he makes his appeal to those who know General Evans, whether he was likely to descend to the meanness and trickery charged equally upon him as upon Dr. Hellmuth himself by the Metropolitan. He adds that, through the rejection of the proposal, the Germans of Montreal have been lost to the Anglican Church. At the time referred to they would willingly have wor- shipped in that communion, but no encouragement being held out to them, they have now organized themselves into a Lutheran Church. Another son-in-law of General Evans, Mr. Adam Crooks of this city, has alsp addressed to Bishop Fulford a letter of indignant remonstrance on account of the way in which he had attempted to tarnish the character and reputa- tion of his respected relative. The Bishop has replied that his charges applied to Dr. Hellmuth, not to General Evans ; but this is scarcely con- sistent with the tenor of his letter, and is an express contradiction to a statement of the Bishop of Huron, that Bishop Fulford informed him that General Evans and Dr. Hellmuth had '^conspired to obtain from him his consent to a measure which was only intended to enhance the value of General Evans' property, and to obtain a church in the city for his son-in- law." From the tone of Bishop Fulford'e reply to Mr. Crooks, and also of a second letter which he has published in reply to Dr. Hellmuth's, we should think he is now satisfied that his charge, relating to this case of the proposed Sherbrooke street Church, has done more injury to himself than to the object of his attack. The second leading charge brought against Dr. Hellmuth, to show that he is a man on whose testimony no reliance should be placed, is founded on a statement made by the Archdeacon at one of his meetings in England, with reference to a clergyman in Canada who had formerly resided at the place where the meeting was held. Dr. Hellmuth had described this clergyman as " a very successful laborer and an able minister, much and deservedly loved by his people." Bishop Fulford says it will scarcely be credited that Dr. Hellmuth knew, before he left Canada last autumn, this very person whom he eulogised, and who was a Missionary of the Colonial Church and School Society, had signed a document confessing that he had spoken an absolute untruth, and that consequently he, Dr. Hellmuth, as Superintendent of the Society, had, after enquiry, decided that he must leave his mission. Dr. Hellmuth replies by stating the facts of the case. In January, 1860, the Missionary alluded to, in addressing a public meet- ing, at which Bishop Fulford was chairman, had gone beyond the strict 32 line of truth by exaggeration ; but, when reproved for it, he had expresaed his dec'i. .^orrow, and was forgiven by his congregation, who were, and still are, most attached to him. One gentleman in the congregation, a relative of whom had the power of shutting up the church in that mission, the building being her private property, persuaded the Missionary to sign the document, acknowledging that he had spoken an untruth, and made every eflFort to procure his removal to another field of labor. Under all the cir- cumstances, it was finally agreed, but in the most friendly way, that the Missionary should leave the mission by the end of 18G1, but so high an opinion did Dr. Hellmuth entertain of his zeal and usefulness, that he used his influence with the Bishop of Huron, to assign him a station in his diocese. No sooner, however, did his people learn that they were to be deprived of their minister, than they remonstrated to a man, with the exception of the single family above referred to, and left nothing undone to retain their Pastor. Various documents are quoted to substantiate these assertions, and the most important fact of all is, that to this moment, this Missionary still continues in his mission, by the desire of his people and the approval of hii Bishop. The facts, we think, clearly establish that no charge of deception could lie against Dr. Hellmuth, on account of the man- ner in which he spoke of the clergyman in question. But in this case also, as in that of General Evans, the Metropolitan has found that his anxiety to damage Dr. Hellmuth has led him into difficulties with third parties, and in a later pamphlet we find a letter from his lordship to this clergyman, apologizing for having brought up his case, and disclaiming any desire to express an opinion upon it. In addition to these main charges, there are a variety of statements and insinuations scattered through the Bishop's first pamphlet, all of which, it seems to us, are satisfactorily met by the Archdeacon. Thus, the Bishop says that when Dr. Hellmuth was about to be sent out as the General Superintendent of the Colonial Church and School Society for British North America, the Montreal Committee pressed upon the Society the importance of arresting their decision respecting the appointment, and that in consequence he came out as Superintendent for British North America, with the exception of the Diocese of Montreal — the insinuation, of course^ being that the Montreal Committee had reason to think that he was not the proper man for the office. Dr. Hellmuth meets this by quoting the letter of the Montreal Committee, showing that the reasons for their action were not founded on any personal objections against himself, the prin- cipal jeason being that the Kev. Mr. Bond, then the agent of the Society, was efficiently superintending its operations in the Diocese of Montreal, and that they were so well satisfied with that gentleman, that they did not desire a change. Again, the Bishop states that about the time he was selected for the Bishopric of Montreal, he saw a paragraph in a London S3 newspaper, stating that Dr. Hellmuth was to be the Bishop; and, that two or three years ago, during a temporary illness of the Bishop of Quebec, a paragraph appeared stating that Dr. Hellmuth was to be appointed his •coadjutor— the insinuation being that Dr. H., through an inordinate desire to become a member of the hierarchy had procured the insertion of these paragraphs himself. As regards the Quebec paragraph, Mr. Justice Stuart has written to say that he is personally cognizant of the manner in which it got into print, and that Dr. Hellmuth could have no knowledge of it. It is unnecessary that we should go more minutely into the details of the controversy, which has already attained considerable dimensions ; con- sisting of the Metropolitan's first letter and the Archdeacon's reply, the Metropolitan's second letter, and the Archdeacon's second reply, and a pamphlet of correspondence between Mr. Adam Crooks and the Metropoli- tan, relative to the charge against General Evans; besides a number of letters which- have appeared in the Sherbrooke Leader and the Quebec Gazette. Bishop Fulford, we think, from the comments he has drawn upon himself, must now regret that, from whatever motive, whether zeal for his party or personal feeling, he should have attempted the destruction of the character of a useful and respected minister of his own church. If he was thoroughly satisfied that Dr. Hellmuth was the vile man he repre- sented him to be, his proper course would have been to have brought him before a Court of Ecclesiastical Discipline. He has preferred to bring him before the tribunal of public opinion, and if the verdict that is ren- dered acquits the accused, and condemns and censures the accuser, he has no right to complain of the consequenses his own act has brought upon himself. THE CHURCH IN CANADA. [Fiom the London, (Eng.) Record.] (From a Gentleman in Canada in Her Majesty's Service.) June 13, 1862. My Dear Sir,— It has appeared to me that the friends of Dr. Hellmuth in England would not be sorry to have some information of the prevailing senti- ments of the members of tlie Church in reference to the pamphlet which the Bishop of Montreal has issued against him. I mav therefore say, that I tind all here, without exception, " High" or " Low," clerical or lay,^onderan the Bishop. His pamphlet is viewed as being derogatory to a Bishop and a Metropolitan, unargumeutaiivc, and insinuating matters on which the Great Searcher of heai-ts should alone be allowed to judge. Dr. Hellmuth's reply has been considered an able refuta- Hon, anfl Mio Bishop, in a n-join^lor whioh ho has iMihli(*hpf1. has ton ih qmto ohscured in tho conHidemtion of ])ersonal abuso whioh the Bishop lias unfor- tunately allowed himself to descend to. It is hinted thai an action <»f lihol may he laid against^ the Bishop in accusing General Evans of a "conspiracy to t^ike him in;" hut I, trust it may not he the case What suflferinjis these are for our Zion, ahmdy so distracted! and is it not t«3rrible when an exalted dignitary in '>ur Church throws the whole weight of his position towards crushing a fello\\ labourer in the vinevard of the Lord, ami by charges which lie cannot substantiate, and which, at the best, are but insinuations. I feel assured that the truth will be vindicated, and that soon ; but the injury to the Church will remain. Let us pay that God will send out his light and his truth, to lead and guide us through these matters. Ever, my dear Sir, Sincerely yours, TRACTARIANISM IN CANADA. [iX) TUB EDITOR OF THE RECOKD, JUNK 16.] , .: Sir,— No move words need be said, to convince your readers that Trinity College, Toronto, is a thoroughly Puseyite concern. - , • The recent attack upon Archdeacon Hellmuth., by Bishop Fulford, is most unwarrantable. It is not surprising that tfc 3 statements made by Dr. Hellmuth at the Ishngton Meeting respecting the state of the Churqh in Canada, should have been distasteful to Dr. Fulford, and the enemies of the Evangehcal truth ; and if they had confined themselves to an attempt to re- fute his statements, no one could have found any fault with them for doing so; but failing in this, Bishop Fulford has shown the weakness of his cause, by merging it in a personal attack on the character and motives of Arch- deacon Hellmuth, unsustained by facts or evidence of any sort Such con- duct is surely ungentlemanly and unjustifiable in the extreme. Dr. Hellmuth has a claim on the syn.pathy of his Evangelical brethren in England and I trust that he will receive the assurance of their fullest con- fidence, whilst he is placed in such trying circumstances. It ought not to be forgotten that Evangelism has not the same status in Canada which it has in England; and that our friends in the Diocese of Huron, ai-e in very much the same position that the fathers of jJ/angelisra were in England sixty years ago, when they were a scouted fragment in our church, every where spoken against. Their hands, therefore, ought to bo held up, and strengthened by tholr brethren in this country who are more favorably circumstanced. I have the fullest confidence in the integrity of Dr. Hellmuth, believing him to be a man of superior talents, thoroughly enlightened, and governed 35 idedly Oft- by tho bighost. motives — having at hojvrt the interests of the Gospel in iiada. Tlie Hisliop of Huron hiu tho Hanie confidoncn in him likowi«*, and no man knows him moio thoroughly than he dom — tho hist pro*)!" of thi« confi- dence has boon given by the Bishop, in rofusing to listen to tho unwarrant- able and slanderous attacks recently made upon tho character of his absent archdeacon. I believe that tho present pei-secution which Dr. Hellmuth is undergo- ing, is purely for tho Gospel, and is the precise counteqiart to that which our Vanes, Borridges, Romaines, and other Evangelical men encountered at tho close of last century. I hope this matter will be taken up at headquarters by those of more m- fluence than myself, and that they will let Bishop Fulford understand plainly, that whilst they do believe Archdeacon Hellmuth's stJitementa, con- cerning the state of the Ch'irch in Canada, they don't believe Bishop Ful- ford's slanderous and unaustained attacks on the character of Archdeacon Hellnmth — and are prepared to give him the fullest assurance of their sym- pathy, confidence, and affection. I greatly rejoice that ho returned back to Canada with five thousand pounds to found an Evangelical College in that colony, the want of which is further illustrated by these recent proceedings ; and I hope that Evangelical men will show their discernment, by concen- trating their contributions on those institutions such as Huron College, and the Colonial and Continental Church Society, which can bo thoroughly trusted for their Protestant and Evangelical principles — and thus see that they get the full worth of their money. I have no idea that five thousand pounds will suffice for the wants of Huron College, and I hope that before lonp- we may have Dr. Hellmuth among us again, asking for another 5,000?. and that the reception he will then meet with will be the most practical proof we can give him, that we have the fullest confidence in the purity of his motives, the integrity of his character, the excellence of his administra- tive powers, and, though last not least, in his thoroughly Protestant and Evangelical principles. I remain your obedient servant, G. T. Fox. Durham, June IC, 1862. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN CANADA. [From a Correspondent of the Record.] MoNTRffiAL, June 27, 1862. As an evidence of the truth of Archdeacon Hellmuth s assertion in regard to the i>revalence of High Churchism in Canada, I may state that of the twelve lay delegates elected to the Provincial Synod by the Toronto 36 one, every one, excepting Rev. Dr. Shortt, of Port Hope, are supporters of the Tractariuu Provost of Trinity College, iind some of them Jire Ultra- High Churchmen. Tn tile new Diocese of Oiiturio, the Biwhop, a.id a majority of the Clergy an Trinity College admirers, 'f he Bishop, who is now in Ireland, is pro- claimed by the Irish papers to be a chanijiion ol' Protestunism, and appeals }'re made ^o Or.iiigemcn to support him. In his first address, lu; made an unfair oiisli ught upon the munh beloved Bishop ol' Huron, who has lately come out, bcldly, with his charge of unsound doctrine against the Provost of Trinity C* Me/xc The Bisiiop, from l)r. Whitalcer's own pamphlets, publislied in del. •nee ol his own ti-aching, proves C(mclusively the. unsound- ness of his instructions to llu! divinity students. The doctrines or subjeotei formally objected to by the Bishop of Huron in that teaching are as follows : — 1. That the Virgin Mary is '* an instrument in bringing mankind into the Kingdom of Heaven." 2. That the intercession of the Saints in Heaven for us is a probable truth. 3. That Priestly absolution is necessary before our pardon is bestowed in Heaven. 4. That there arc more than two sacraments, although Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only " great Sacraments." 5. That justification is not simply by faith in Jesus Cljrist, but through Sacraments. 6. That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, "the glorified humanity of our Lord is partaken by every faithful recipient." 7. That the Sacrament is " the only means by which we are assured in Scripture we shall (certainly) receive grace." 8. That the Church of England lost at the Reformation admirable usages and good things. It is full time that an Evangelical College were established in Upper Canada, when our young clergy have to come out of such a semi-Popish school as Trinity College, Toronto, and I am happy to say that by the zealous efforts of Archdeacon Hellmuth amongst the sound and liberal Churchmen in England, we soon will have it. It is most painful to us all here that the Bishop of Montreal and Metropolitan should have become the personal assailant of the worthy Archdeacon. His lordship's serious charges have been most satisfactorily answered by Dr. Hellmuth, and the people are almost unanimously on his side. The Metropolitan- is highly respected by all who know him, and since in Canada he never until now gave cause for censure. He has filled his exalted position as a Christian and a gentleman. With deep regret then, all his frieuds speak of the ^ ^ I 37 nnfortuiiato position ho has plncod hiinmelf in, ns the defnnier of an innocent man. Tho Bishop has publiwhed two letters in regard to Dr. Hellmxith, whicli that gentleman has answered, and many othf-r letters huvi, j^)pearcd. Tho subject ought now to drop, an it ha.s been niOHt thoroughly exhausted and the party accused been fully ac([uitted. THK METROPOLITAN AND ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH. ► * [TO THE EDITOll OF THE QCKBEC OAZITTE.] Sir, — 1 had not thought to have troubled you again on the " Hubbub in tlie Church of England." 1 see, however, that Archdeacon Hellmuth's answer to the defamatory aspersions of his Metropolitan, tho Lord Bishop of Montreal, has been published, and I feol called upon to say a few words more on the subject. With your permission, I therefore offer you the following remarks. When I wrote my last letter, it was under the impression that tho Archdeacon was not in the Province, ov at least, not in this part of it. I should not liavo mixed myself up in the matter, had I been better informed. If the fyles of the Gazette wore searclied for the last score or two of years, they would amply testify that most of the polemical disputations which have stirred up our otherwise phlegmatic population, have arisen and existed in the Church of England. At one time the war has been a hand-to-hand fight between bishop and bishop ; at another, between bishops and their clergy ; sometimes between the clergy and the people ; sometimes between the people and the Synods ; and once — -^nly once — between the Synod and the Venerable Beadle of the parish I Letters, verses, lampoons, and libels, during the prevailence of these typhoons, are hurled from one to another, and fly about like feathers in a breeze ; and shall it be confessed, that like feathers, too, they are equally harmless, the woollen garments of the wearer, whether of tweed or broad-cloth, being as effective a protection as the steel harness of knights of yore. But, however harmless this mode of warfare in general, there are excep- tions to this as to all other rules ; and one is, where a man clothed in authority, in the Church of the living God, so far forgets his dignity as to descend to the littleness of making use of his brief authority to oppress, aye, and so far as in him lies, to crush I one of his own profession, subject to him under the most solemn of vows. If I have thus alluded to the Metropolitan's letter, it is because it is so apparent that the writer has not only brought all his authority as a Bishop r :;;;:::2U«SSSfiB3iE£S«i.iswH 38 to bear upon the Archdeacon, but also all that possessed under his patent of Metropolitan ; and has entered the lists armed aip-a-pic as accuser, witness ai»d judge, and if successful, as executioner ! ! And does it not at once strike the most sluggish mind, that if his Lordship deemed the halt of what he has said to be true, it was an imperative duty which he owed to his Church to bring the offender to the metropolitan bar, instead of lam- pooning him in a five-cent pamphlet. The Metropolitan pretends to be cruelly shocked at two of the Arch- deacon's statements, which I have already particularized. Now,^ no one could understand why these statements— which are all but universally acknowledged to be true by the public here— should have so uncomfortably discomposed the primate's equanimity ; but the cause has been very satis- factorily explained. It appears that the Rev. Canon Miller and the Rev. J. C. Ryle, at a meeting of the Colonial Church and School Society— men who habitually lead public opinion in England— spoke at considerable length ; and on consulting the Record of the 12th May it will be found, made assertions on these very subjects identical with those of the Arch- deacon—one of them, the Rev. J. C. Ryle, having used similar words for at least twenty years past. Let me give the words of these gentlemen. The Rev. Canon Miller said " he was afraid that there was still a desire in some of the colonial dioceses to set up what he must call, with all honest frankness, episcopal tyranny ! He was convinced that the evangelical clergy were found in practice the most obedient section of the clergy with whom the episcopacy had to deal ; but the presbytery of the Church had their liberties just as truly as the bishops had their rights ; and it would be as perilous a day for the Church when the liberties of the presbytery were infringed as when the authority of the bishops was impugned." The Rev. J. C. Ryle speaks out, too. " He knew there were colonies of Eng- land in which it was exceedingly hard for an evangelical clergyman to hold up Ms head ! ! Exceedingly hard, because such a man would not bow down his head and lick the dust instead of doing what he felt to be his duty to his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ! !" And with great apprecia- tion of the state of the Church in the colonies, he adds—" He believed that there was a vast number of lay brethren in the colonies wlio loved the Church of England with all their heart and soul, their mind and strength ; but then they wanted to see the Church in the colonies represented as it was here ! (Hear, hear, and cheers.) If any man thought he could dragoon men into being churchmen where the gospel of Jesus was not to be heard, he would find that he had made a vast mistake ; he would find that the colonial laity would rathfir have the gospel and Presbyterianisin, or the gospel and Independency, than no gospel and episcopacy." These are strong, bold words. God grant that men may lay them to heart, for they are true words. These are the ipsissima verba, and not so uiuch ary- ► J 39 > »♦ v \^ thing that Archdeacon Ilenmuth uttered, which have effeetnally aroused the fears of our episcopacy ; and if anything were wanting to induce this belief, it would be the pamphlet of the Metropolitan, intended, doubtless, to crush the Archdeacon for having, as he supposes, nnurisluMl them into life, and to deter others in like case ofiending. We laymen cannot be too thankful that, to use a hackneyed phrase, these speakers have " hit the nail on the head." Tlio Metropolitan 1 familiar enough with this country to know that these words will find a response in the heart of the whole body of the laity of the Church of 'England, and will feel it to be fortunate that they were spoken under a clear conviction that the colonies are not ripe for the complicated machinery of an episcopal bench, prominently conspicuous and active, and a clergy painfully depend- ant, from the patronage being exclusively in the hands o the episcopacy, while they themselves are mere missionaries, and thereiibre at the mercy of their diocesan— and, let me add, a laity indifferent, at least till their own interests are touched or their fears aroused. Hence, I say, the Metropoli- tan's dies iroe. By-the-bye, will his lordship forgive me for inserting here the very best commentary I have heard on the pamphlet in yellow facings. I know it to be a fact. It is this : a gentleman lent his copy to a friend; with a request to let him know what he thought of it. When returned, it contained these words in pencil—" From envy, hatred, and malice, and all uncharitableness, good Lord deliver us." Whether a religious remark, or a cutting sarcasm, I won't venture to say. The Metropolitan seems annoyed that the Record should comment on the Archdeacon's text. He says snappishly, " The Record having been thus furnished with a text, enforced the subject with an appropriate commen- tary." And in another place, after stating what the Archdeacon had said on the colonies, he says, "No wonder that the Record tells its readers next week, so and so." As if all the Record's observations are to go for nothing because the Metropolitan fancies that the Archdeacon's remarks had been used as a text. This is surely an illogical deduction. Why may not the speeches of the Rev. Canon Miller and the Rev. J. C. Ryle, have furnisaed the Record the pegs on which to hang his remarks. The Archdeacon ably handles the various little episodes which the Me- tropolitan has brought up against him, and convincingly shows that his lordship, in his great haste to conviet, has lent but a too willing ear to the tittle tattle of parasites, has magnified trivial circumstances of no earthly weight, cooked them up for the public — whom he must fain consider remarkably gullible,— and so piquanfly served them up that they have assumed brobdignag proportions, and appeared at first sight alarmingly important, while the Archdeacon, with the simple wand of truth, in ana- tomizing these charges, has disrobed them of their imposing exterior, and they have dwindled into their natural aud harmless proportions. As ai» 40 exaiiiiilo, although I have on another occasion touched upon this subject let me again mention the story of the church in Sherbrooke street. Would any unprejudiced man, taking the Metropolitan's own version, ever dream that the offer of the £3,000 was an intentional " takein^^ when the very mo- ment the Archdeacon perceives that the Metropolitan is laboring under an error, he breaks in upon him in somewhat of surprise and alarm with these words — " Oli, hut the General is not going to give the £3,000." Who but the Metropolitan himself would have ventured to call this " a take in," boasting the while of his clear perceptions of character. His lordship, one might rather have thought, would have felt nettled for a moment at the opaqueness of his own mind. He might have been pardoned this ; but it is no apology for his subsequent conduct in taking a regular headder into print, and making of this a silly accusation against a co-dignitary of his own church as futile as it is singular. All the charges, however, the Archdeacon has answered in so very satis- factory a manner that the reverend Metropolitan will be clever indeed if he can press t|iis and his other shattered hobbies again into his service. His lordship in relation, however, to this particular subject, assures us that his opinion of the Archdeacon will never be altered ! ! I have no manner of doubt that this will prove correct. There are opinions, that except in minds softened and enlarged by Christian charity, are so exceed- ingly adhesive as to outlive even the goadings of conscience ; but it is satis- factory to those who might otherwise suffer from them, that they are very generally held without any participation by others, and are therefore of little consequence. I have consulted the Quebec almanac, and find the clergy to consist of the following gentlemen : The Lord Bishop, the Rev. Dr. Adamson, the Rev. Mr. Sewell, the Rev. Mr. Houseman, the Rev. Mr. Fox, the Rev. Mr. Please, the Rev. Mr. Mountain, the Rev. Mr. Hamilton, the Rev. Mr; Sykes, the Rev. Mr. Guay, and the Rev. Mr. Roe, only one of whom, according to their Reverend Metropolitan, has any pretensions to the character of an evangelical man ! I ! How sad ! And yet it must be true : it has come to us ex cathedra. Though not very complimentary to the clergy in general, the fact will delight the Archeadon, it being so conclusively corroborative of -his own views; nor will the Reverends J, C. Ryle and Canon Miller be less pleased to hear it; and lest, in the multiplicity of these gentlemen's avocations, it should pass unnoticed — though uot probable — it will be imposed upon me, as holding an important but very humble ofiice in the church, to offer myself as a special correspondent on church matters, as well to them as to the Record newspaper. Such an arrangement, I have no doubt, will prove as agreeable to them as it may turn out advantageous to ourselves. I hasten to conclude. I can only express a hope that the Archdeacon's !»5 41 •defence will receive the approbation of the public, a. he ha. already been Bolaoed by its sympathy. d<^npndence in the colonial Hook upon the battle ^etw-n pow^r n^^^ ^^^^^^^^ churches as already commenced The nmltiphcati^^^ ^^^ the multiplication of our troubles m the ^^^^^;«];' ^^^'Jf^^, America is and if thoy wouU be sale they musi _^^ ^^^^^ I ought to end my scr.bb hng here, ^ ''/»;' ^™f L„,d»hip'. beau- f„, you will permit me to »«-»>: --■^^f/^^^g^'^ed that it eould not tiful »f 'PP^O-'f^X^ ,„ n ; ndlerooo", services of the Chureh be made to form part ot tne mouu. „ ^^ seriously to ofEngland.forif any set ol "^/j^;; '/ j,, ; ;;,.d:L-." Hisamini.- iaj, to heart the Junger, .->»«« ■« % r^^J";^^,* it „„t only with other with whoever will say Peas! ^.^ ^^^ ,^_,g^ij. („ I feel P-^f»"^tlS w^; a^Tear Lne sky be after this 6fo.. others. How very reteshing wui f„j„ivcne8s are once more While whispering ^-f^fj^j;; to arn hereafter that my letter, stealing over onr hearts, I »!«" >» ^^\^ ^^^je of affairs. I conceal have in some measure contrrbnted to this happy « of receiving it not from myself, >'?"«7;,*;''f^;;";" unexceptional and effective. ad,i.e and corr-tion from ^ * "^^'^^^^'J^ cheered and encouraged inke-rrithtrtatd-in'r «U known mot.. ■' B.U tort. faU f^ droit r ^°^''^' The Verger. THE METROPOLITAN ANDARCHDEACON HELLMUTH. ''rr "^"'n r c^^eSop^^^ontrealin answer We have veceive.l the .econd Ic te. o Ihe^l^ ^^^l^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ to Dr. HeUmutli. hrst '' ''^f' ' .,;^;^''^ ^^ ij:,Uop s second letter, and after gentleman which ^vas <==^»l«"i;,^ !^^ ^^i'^eLn forced to the conclusion tha Lding both P'''m^^'l«'V''ri^:d in t endeavour to ruin the character ot 1. Mr...^„olUnn has entirely tailed in nis enuui Atl..nt> for the enerav F 42 to say that this opinion is shared in by the public generally, if we may judge by -he comments that appear from time to time in the press in all parts of the country. The only explanation we can give of the Metropolitan's conduct is, that he was so completely blinded by prejudice and pei-sonal animosity against the Archdeacon, that he resolved to injure him in public opinion at all ha: irds, and failing to find in the long period of twelve years any facts that would justify the slightest attack on his character, he has had recoui-se to a series of insinuations that prove nothing except the unchristian spirit of him who advanced them. We are truly sorry for the sake of the Church that this controversy has ever arisen, but as the Metropolitan has been the aggressor, and that with the view of crushing the object of his ill-will by the influence of his high position, we .o^iaider it a public duty to .*peak out in plain and unmistakable language as the advocate of justice without reference to the position of the parties involved. We recommend our readei-s to peioise carefully the respective pamphlets of the Metropolitan and Dr. Hellmuth. They will easily see that the lan- guage of tha latter contrasts raost favorably with that of the Metropolitan. The Doctor's style is calm and dignified, although he wrote under the severest provocation that a Christian man could be called on to endure. It will also be observed, chat the Metropolitan, in his anxiety to retreat from the position he assumed in his first letter, has dragged in both the Bishops of Huron and Quebec in<^o the controversy in his second pastoral, by denying the accuracy of statements made by both these prelates concerning the controversy. Altogether we think the Metropolita,n has placed himself in a most unen- viable position in the eyes of the public, and, in our opinion, the only wise course there now remains open for him, however humiliating that course may be, is to come forward at once and publicly retract the aspersions he has tried to cast on a well-tried and honored Minister of the Gospel. THE BISHOP OF HURON'S CHARGE TO THE CLERGY OF HIS DIOCESE. [From the London Prototype, July 3, 1862.] The following extract from his Lordship's able and eloquent charge will be read by our readers with pleasure, as it bears on points of o-eneral in- terest. The first is that relating to the death of the lamented Prince Con- sort, and we are sure the public will cordially endorse the sentiments ex- pressed by the Bishop towards the memory of the husband of our beloved Queen. The second- pai-t of the extract refers to a question that has recently uccn much agitated among us — the nnssiou of Archdeacon Hellmuth to England, to obtain funds for the erection of a theological college in this diocese. It will be seen that the Archdeacon acted by direction of the may judge all parts of tropolitan's d pei-sonal 1 in public velve yeai'8 be has had unchristiau •oversy has that with f his high mistakabie tion of the pamphlets at the lan- tropolitan. ;he severest [t will also tie position Huron and e accuracy )ntroversy. Qost unen- only wise bat course ersions he )e]. LERGY barge will eneral in- ince Con- ments ex- r beloved IS recently Urauth to e jn this m of the • 48 Bishop in staiing that the proposed college was to be of a thoroughly Protestant and Evangelical character. It will be gratifyino; to the friends of the Archdeacon to see, from the foUowinir extract, the liio;h estimation in which he is held by his own Bishop —an estimation m which the synod of the Diocese appears to concur, from their havins; elected him on the very first occasion of his taking his seat among them as one of their delegates to the Provincial Synod at Montreal : [FROM THE LAST CHARGE OF THE LORD BISHOP.] " For some time past 1. have felt the want of a school of theology in the Diocese, where young men offering themselves as candidates for holy orders might receive such teaching, and undergo such training in pastoral and parochial work, as would fit them to enter upon the duties of independent missions with reasonable prospect of success. At present young men are taken from college, or from their studies, and placed in charge of missions far removed from their itrethren in the ministry, and the result has been, in more cases than one, that in the zeal of youth, and through the want of some experienced friend to counsel them, some injudicious step has been taken and oflfence given, which it had required years to remedy. " In England and Ii-eland young men are placed in the commencement of their ministry under some experienced rector or incumbent, and acting under his direction, the evils which I have mentioned are avoided. But in this country it is not in our power to adopt this wise plan. Therefore, I have for some timt^ desired to have a theological college, entirely under my own control, where the doctrines of our church might be t^mght, where I shall have the opportunity of ascertaining the fitness of men for the office which they sought, and where they might be trained in pastoral and paroch- ial duties. . /-I J 1 " Last year Dr. Hellmuth, who had long been known m Canada as general superintendent of the Colonal and Continental Church Society in British North America, was compelled, by ill health, to resign his connection with that society, and to go to England. I gladly availed myself of the oppor- tunity of appointing'him as ray commissary in the United Kmgdom,_ to solicit aid for the erection of a school of theology in the diocese; and havmg appointed him Archdeacon of Huron and assistant minister in the cathedral, he went to England for the purpose of laying before our brethren there our wants and wishes upon this subject. I am truly thankful that, through the Divine blessing upon his efforts, the venerable Archdeacon has met with a large raea'^iure of success amongst our friends at home. The sum of over five thousand pounds has been the result of a few months unwearied exertions in the mother country. I regard this as an earnest of what our brethren at home are disposed to do for us toward carrying out the object we have m view. "Excention has been taken as to some statements made by the Archdeacon at a meeting in London. I have examined these statements, as explained by the Archdeacon, and so far as the part of Canada with which I have been intimately acquainted for nearly thirty years is concerned, I feel assured that his statements are strictly in' accordance with fact*. With many of the 44 rUioceses in British North America I have had little or no acquainlAnce, there- fore I cannot from my own knowledge speak of them. But as Dr. Hellmuth has acted for so many years as the representative of the Colonial and Conti- nental Church Society in British North America, I should not be disposed to question his testimony as to the religious state of these dioceses. " Whether it was prudent in the Archdeacon, while representing me in England, to have made statements concerning other dioceses, may be ques- tioned by some, but it must be borne in mind that the Archdeacon addressed a meeting of avowedly evangelical clergymen in Islington, not so much as ray representative as the late general superintendent of the Colonial and Continental Church Society, anrl I ]>resumed he thought that as he had acted so long for this Society, of which all the clergymen he addressed were zealous supporters, it became him, when resigning his official connection with it, to give these gentlemen the result of his experience and observations in the British North American Provinces. I think it due to Archdeacon Hellmuth to state here that my confidence in his sincerity, his piety and veracity, is entirely unshaken, and that I shall continue thankfully to avail myself of his valuable services, in which he has proved himself a faithful and efficient labourer. " One thing I must not omit to state, that my instructions to Archdeacon Hellmuth were, that he should solicit aid from our brethren at home for an institution which should be thoroughly Protestant and evangelical, so that hereafter, when the constitution and laws of the institution are made public, no charge may lie against him of having sought and obtained aid under feilse pretences." \ ^ ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH AND MONTREAL. THE BISHOP OF [From the Christian Times and Episcopal Register, July 5, 1862.] Many of our readers are probably aware that while Archdeacon Hell- muth was absent in England, collecting funds for the new Huron College, his reputation for veracity and stiaightforwardness was publicly assailed by the Bishop of Montreal, who is also the Metropolitan of Canada. Since the Archdeacon's return home, he ha.s replied to the Bishop, and his answer has been published in a pamphlet, a copy of which was duly received at this office. Without going into the jnerits of the controversy, either to defend Dr. Hellmuth on the one hand, or to assail the Bishop on the other, we deem it sufficient to say, that the reply of the Archdeacon appears to be satisfactory, and CQT'hlsivA nf t.Vio mntorisil i-iAin^" "♦■ iaono an foi. aa +l-imT Kaln^-a ♦« \\ia character. It appears that the Archdeacon opposed the granting of ceiiain powers to the Metropolitan of Canada as such, and so incurred the dis- pleasure of his Lordship. Whether this is the true account or not, it is evident that the Bishop vr» 45 ance, there- '. Helimuth and Conti- •e disposed I. iting me in ly be ques- n addressed 30 much as olonial and as he had ressed were lection with jrvations in ^.i'chdeacon piety and lly to avail faithful and \.rchdeacon lome for an cal, so that lade public, ^ aid under lOP OF 2.] lacon Hell- )n College, assailed by Since the answer has k'ed at this defend Dr. we deem it satisfactory, ; of certain d the dis- 3ishop was \ i hasty in his action, and that his charges were as ill-advised, as they have proved to be ill-sustained. If Bishop Fulford was opposed to the erection of a new college in Canada, or ofi'onded with Dr. Helimuth, either for his ac- tivity in collecting funds for it, or on aiicount of liis speeches while obrofid, then he should have confined his strictures to these points. But for him to go back of all these things — the ostensible cause of his pastoral — and rake up conversations of by-gone years, only to publish 7iis varsion of them, in the absence of one of the |)arties, whose chaiacter was seriously compro- mised by the Bishop's version of said conversations — all this appears some- what singular to us Americans, who generally abstain from such personali- ties in controversies of this sort. But our Canadian brethren resort to them 80 readily on all occasions, that we should " blush" for " our Anglo-Saxon relationship," did we not reflect, tliat as the " guardians of civilization," the English are as incapable of doing wrong themselves, as they are of permitting it in their neighbors. THE METROPOLITAN AND ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH. [to THK EUITOK OF TIIK QVEUEC GAZETTE.] Mk. Editor, — The London Record of the 9th July has just been handed to me, and I was pleased to find so full, ample, and convincing a defence of Archdeac(m Helimuth as its leader shows. lo may be taken as a sure indi- cation of the feelings and convictions of the Evangelical party in England, and certainly here and in Upper Canada it will gladden the heai-ts and strengthen the hands of the same party . It has reached us at a singularly appropriate moment, when the Provincial Synod is on the eve of its annual session. In this session, the powers of the Metropolitan, so sur.^ptitiously obtained, will have to be modified, defended, and I hope circumscribed. — The 8ufl?agan bishops, by an attentive persual of this leader, will have wit enough to learn which way the cat is likely to jump, and to regulate themselves accordingly ; and I feel convinced that it will infuse into the delegates, lay and clerical, such light as may tend materially to a correct and conscientious vote. The subject will no doubt be broached by his lordship in his opening address with a view to strengthen his influence by securing the powers which he has been exeicising under the Patent, even before its acceptance by the Provincial Synod ; and if these povvere be confirmed, it will recjuire no prophet to foretel the injuri- ous effects on the church in general, and on the Bishops and Clergy in particular. Should your views coincide with mine, you will perhaps favour me with the insertion of the leader in your valuable paper. ! Once more, with deep feelings oi gr.°titude in permitting f>ne in my humble station of life to give his thoughts to the pubhc, through the medium of your paper, I remain, Your old friend, Thx Vxkgbr. 46 THE METKOPOMIAN AND DR. HELLMUTH. [From the London (Erig.) Hecord, July 9th, 1802.] We have now befor») m both the letter of the Bishop of Montreal and the rejily of Dr. Helhnuth, and, after a carefiil perusal, we are constrained to state that a more indecent and unbecoming attack uj)on personal charac- ter it has never been our lot to meet with, than that which the Bishop Las made on the Archdeacon. The fons et origo malt is to be traced up to the following words uttered by Dr. Hellmuth at the Islington Clerical Meeting:— "Evangelical men are at a great discount in those colonies generally, and an eifort is being made to rear a hierarchial structure, which he feared would not tend, as is supposed by some, to strengthen the cause of pure Protestant and Evangelical truth." ;Now we have here the assertion of a fact, and the expression of an opinion. If Bishop Fulford, offended at the statement, thought it expedient to take 80 unusual a course as to address a letter to the Bishops and Clergy in Canada exclusively on the subject, the course he ought to have pureued should have been to refute the asserted fact by counter evidence, and the opinion expressed by effective argument. Neither of which has he attempted ; but instead of taking this plain and straightforward course, he has expended nearly the whole of his letter in making a personal attack on the character of Dr. Hellmuth. It is a matter of very considerable interest to many of our readers to know the merits of the case, and to ascertain whether the money they have given to Huron College has been got from them under false pretences by a man of worthless chaiacter, as Bishop Fulford would ha\'e it; or whether the confidence they have hitherto placed iii the Ai-chdeacon has been justly so placed; we shall, therefore, take a review of the charges of the Bishop and the defence of Dr. Hellmuth, • We shall say nothing respecting the statement made by Dr. Hellmuth at the Islington Meeting, — in the truth of which we have the fullest confi- dence, and have received confirmation of it from reliable sources, because our present inquiiy confines us to the charges brought against Drl Hellmuth's pereonal character. 1. The first charge brought against the Ai'chdeacon is his concealment of his sentiments from the Christian Knowledge Society ; in short, his making one statement when addressing his Evangelical friends, and an entirely different one when seeking to get money from the old-fashioned High Church Society just named. The answer the Archdeacon makes to this chaige is simple. He sayp, " I did, before making application to that venerable body, mform the Secretaiies of the Society of the Trinity College controversv." — ..^,i..,. .-. .-..Lu ji.ivi fiittvj\.-i3, cuiyujiicu y.'iLii iin: wfu-Kiiowu pnnciples of the Archdeacon, was that the Puseyite section of the Christian Knowledge Society rallied in full force to prevent the grants being made to the Huron College, That the faction failed speaks more fully in favor of the venerable Society than any words we could utter. ^•KS 47 %. We have next the Bishop of Quebec iuiwilUnQrly dragged into the controversy, for the stirring Bishop seems to have left" no stone unturned to accomplish his object of damaging his (opponent's character. Wo are at a loss, however, to understand why the Bishop of Quel>ec'8 letter makes its appearance, as it does not contain a single chaifre ag-MJn^t tiie Archdea'^oii, and merely informs us that a '• cordial friendship had subsisted between them," showing what had been the sentiments of the Bishop, till his mind was prejudiced by the groundless charges of his benevolent brother. 3. Next comes an attempt to prove that when the Colonial Church and School Society contemplated appointing Dr. Hellmuth General Superinten- dent of their Missions, the Montreal Committee protested against the appoint- ment from a want of confidence in his character. Now we "have here a choice specimen of polemical recklessness, which shows the animus of the Bishop throughout his whole letter. He would leave it on the minds of his readers that this protest arose from a want of confidence in Dr. Hellmuth's character. If it proceeded from any other cause, its introduction was irrelevant. Living on the spot, it would have been very easy for the Bishop to have ascertained the reason for the protest from its author, and to have stated plainly, that want of confidence in Dr. Hellmuth was not the ground of that protest. The reason assigned, however, was quite suflScient, and had nothing to do with Dr. Hellmuth, viz:— "That heretofore Mr. Bond had been quite able to superintend the schools as they exist." 4. We now come to the'most discreditable of all the attacks made upon Dr. Hellmuth, and are likewise introduced to a new party in the transaction. The Bishop would have acted more wisely to have left him out entirely, but being in that awkward predicament which the poet considei-s a sufficient apology for introducing superior beings, " Nee Deus intersit nisi dignus vindice nodus," and having got into what our transatlantic brethren would call a " snarl," he makes a fierce onslaught not merely on Dr. Hellmuth, but likewise on his venerable father-in-law. General Evans. The charge brought jointly against the father and son is simply this, that an ofier made to the Bishop by Gen. Evans to advance £3,000 towards building a church in Montreal, of which Dr. Hellmuth was to be the first Incumbent, was a mere " manoeuvre" on his part, in order to give a higher value to his property in that part of the town. Bishop Fulford makes this monstrous attack upon a gallant gentleman of unblemished character, holding the commission of a General in. her Majesty's Army, without adducing a particle of evidence in its support. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that one individual could be found guilty of so dishonorable an act as is charged on Dr. Hellmuth, is it likely than an officer of such unblemished reputation as General Evans, could have consented to go into the unhallowed partnership, and become particeps criminis? The indignant, but not too severe language of Dr. Hellmuth is the best reply to this shameful attack. " My Lord, I feel deeply pained and giieved that my aged and respec- ted father-in-law, now in his 87th year, should be subjected to such an im- putation ; but I leave it with confidence to the public to decide whether it is 4S fi,,a tbal you havegmvoly mBuna..*wa P^^^^^^^^ expect tbat your uu>va.nmtable ' "f^ lut le atmcK, , ^^^ ^^^^ diw Mid s.!iva[.t oftbe Ciown, »ho has ^'' « "> " > < . i,;„„|„„|, witb with disli„gui*ed bouou,-, W.U '- rf:i^^J.'ig> atci tie fe3i..g» wbieb any otber feebng tban d,.gust. /,^;\.'™'r"' .'"^"'^"uarge witb di.d«in and Ihi public will bereafte.- conhni. ; be . «P* J™' ^J"" K n,., |,c looks upo., with' tbc coolnes., which ba, .!««" I''" '7^'rf^u™3jcot,' witb cool in- s.:r.ruK Xt-^:^"'"^ - ^»"'"«"« '" ^""'-'^ '""" '»'"^; a« the cba^.^ b,o-gU S^ "'£ HM^'^X- far forgotten bim^lf. his h.gh office, ^"^ ^^^^^^^^^ unjusii liable, un.us- iato the ai-eimof persona detraction theie to . 2^^^^^^ a neighboring dio- tained, and calumnious attack "P*^ ^"^^ ^^^^i^^^^^^^^^ «8%n<-^ certainly eese. f ^^.^en^^^jnt.^^^^^^ Hfe,than of [hT W Ang^^^^^^^^ as a Presbyter of the mother country, and „.uthlt so early a date ^ " -^^X^^iinV^a F^ *^ ^^f had " his eves opened," ♦ 66 conclusion that the Metropolitan has entirely failed in his endeavour to ruin the character of a man so long and so well known on both sides of the Atlantic for the energy and zeal with which he has laboured in the cause ot Christ. We are glad to say that this opinion is shared in by the public generally, if we may judge by the comments that appear from time to time nf Z mT '" ,' ^f ^' '^, *^'' '^^^'y- ^^« ^"^y explanation we can give of the Metropolitan's conduct is, that he was so completely blinded by pre- judice and personal animosity against the Archdeacon, that he resolved to injure him m public opinion at all hazards ; and, failing to find in the long period of twelve years any facts that would justify the slightest attack on his character, h. has had recourse to a series of insinuations that prove nothing exce- . unchristian spirit of him who advanced them. " We are truly sorry for the sake of the Church that this controversy has ever arisen, but as the Metropolitan has been the aggressor, and that with the view of crushing the object of his ill-will by th- ''> fluence of his high position we consider it a public duty to speak ^ u. plain and unmis- takable language, as the advocate of justice, withoui reference to the posi- tion ot the parties involved. "We recommend our readers to peruse carefully the respective pamph- ets of the MetropoUtan and Dr. Hellmuth. They will easily see that the anguage of the latter contrasts most favourably with that of the Metropo- litan. The Doctor's style is calm and dignified, although he wrote under the severest provocation that a Christian man coiild be called upon to endure It will also be observed that the Metropolitan, in his anxiety to retreat from the position he assumed in his first letter, has dragged in both the ^ishops of Huron and Quebec into the controversy in his second pasto- ral, by denying the accuracy of statements made by both these prelates con- cerning the controversy. Altogether, we think the Metropolitan has placed himself m a most unenviable position in the eyes of the public, and, in our opinion, the only wise course there now remains open for him, however humiliating that course may be, is to come forward at once, and publicly retract the aspersions he has tried to cast on a well-tried and honoured Minister of the Gospel." But the most satisfactory document which has reached us is the Charge of the Bishop of Huron, from which we copy the following extract :— "Last year, Dr. Hellmuth, who had long been known in Canada as Gen- eral Superintendent of the Colonial and Continental Church Society in British North America, was compelled by ill-health to resign his connec- tion with that Society and to go to England. I gladly availed myself of the opportunity of appointing him as my Commissary in the United Kingdom to solicit aid for the erection of a School of Theology in the diocese ; and having appointed him Archdeacon of Huron and assistant minister in the 56 Cathedral, he went to England for the purpose of laving before our breth- ren there our wants and wishes upon this subject. I am truly thankful that, through the Divine blessing upon his eiforts, the venerable Archdea- con has met with a large measure of success amongst our friends at home. The sum of over five thousand pounds has been the result of a few months unwearied exertions in the mother country. I regard this as an earnest of what our brethren at home are disposed to' do for us toward carrying out the object we have in view. " Exception has been taken as to some statements made by the Archdea- con at a Meeting in London. I have examined these statements, as explained by the Archdeacon, and so far as the part of Canada with which I have been intimately acquainted for nearly thirty years is concerned, I feel assured that his statements are strictly in accordance with facts. With many of the dioceses in British North America I have had little or no acquaintance, therefore I cannot from my own knowledge speak of them. But as Dr. Hellmuth has acted for so many years as the representative of the Colonial and Continental Church Society in British North America, I should not be disposed to question his testimony as to the religious state of these dioceses. " Whether it was prudent in the Archdeacon, while representing me in England, to have made statements concerning other dioceses, may be questioned by some, but it must be borne in mind that the Archdeacon addressed a meeting of avowedly Evangelical clergymen in Islington, not so much as my representative, as the late general Superintendent of the Colonial and Continental Church Society, and I presume he thought that as he had acted so long for this Society, of which all the clergymen he addressed were zealous supporters, it became him, when resigning his official connection with it, to giva these gentlemen the result of his expe- rience and observations in the British North American Provinces. I think it due to Archdeacon Hellmuth to state here that my confidence in his sincerity, his piety, and veracity, is entirely unshaken, and that 1 shall continue thankfully to avail myself of his valuable services, in which he has proved himself a faithful and efficient laborer." We may now fairly take leave of this unpleasant subject. The ventila- tion of this dispute will not, we trust, have been without its good efiects. It has tended to open the eyes of our readers to the real state of things in Canada, and to convince them of the truth of Archdeacon Hellmuth's original proposition,-" That Evangelical men are at a great discount in the v-T!!'if!*^ *^^* ^" ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^"« ^^^^ *° ^®^^ ^ hierarchical structure w^ic^ ;.in not tend to strengthen the cause of Protestant Evangelical truth. Moreover, we are now furnished with the confirmation of the Jiishop ot Huron, who endorses the Archdeacon's words, and says, he is assured that the above statement is in strict accordance with facts. Surely 57 it is high time, then, that Evangelical men should awake to this lamen- table state of things in Canada, and see to it, that none of their money be transmitted through questionable channels, lest they too should be instru- mental in helping on the progress of Puseyism, and the building of the hierarchical structure. DR. HELLMUTIl AND THE METROPOLITAN. [to tite editor op the globe.] Sir,— I have just read Dr. Fulford's third letter to the Bishops and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada. Every- body thought that the matter thereia treated had been sufficiently ventila- ted by his Lordship's former letters^ and Dr. Hellmuth's answers to them. The metropolitan, it appears, is of a difFeront opinion, and therefore he returns to the attack, although his last pastoral contains little else than a repetition of what had been said before. In reference to the clergyman alluded to in this correspondence, hig Lordship produces the letter of a lad who has seen some 16 or 17 summers. The evidence of this young man would have been well enough, had he given anything on his own responsibility, but he merely recites what that clergyman had said to him. Now his Lordship tells i;s, in his first letter, that he, (the clergyman) " had signed a document confessing that he had spoken absolu^o untruth." It is difficult, therefore, to see how such evi- dence can help out his Lordship in impugning the truth and integrity of the Archdeacon of Huron. Is the Metropolitan prepared to vouch for the veracity of that clergyman, in this jjarticular instance? Again, Dr. Hell- muth says that he keeps " a journal with dates and particulars." The Metropolitan, it appears, has " for the last 30 years kept a daily journal." Dr. Hellmuth, upon the joint evidence of General Evans and his journal, says that, on the occasion of the Bishop and Mrs. Fulford spending an evening at the house of the General, his Lordship, the General, and himself, " fully and freely conversed" on the subject of building a church in Shcr- brooke street. To this the Metropolitan answers that the entry in his " daily journal" makes no mention of this conversation, and therefore it could not have taken place. Here, although his Lordship should succeed in damaging the veracity of Dr. Hellmuth, which most persons think ho has not yet done, he has still the testimony of General Evau^ against him, who, though advanced in years, is in full possession of all his faculties, with a strikingly clear memory. But the Metropolitan, on this point, has unconsciously laid himself open to the very charge which he is so anxious H to fasten upon Dr, Hellmuth. In declining to accept the oifer of General Evans, he, at the time, assigned as his reason, that he was opposed to -private patronage. After 11 years he brings out the real cause— the attempt on the part of the General and his son-in-law to take Mm in. There certainly is a discrepancy here, which his lordship, no doubt, can explain, but which needs ventilating. Here it may be remarked, en passant, that if there were more such attempts to take in our Bishops, especially in respect to large towns, the Church of England would be in a much bettj^r position in Canada than it now is. It is the want of such offers as General Fvans made, or the refusal of them by the heads of our Church, that fills dissenting places of worship with persons who belong to our communion. It is strange that the metropolitan docs not yet perceive what an unseemly thing it is for a person occupying his high position,:to drag before the world a matter which ought never to have been noticed. As Bishop of Montreal, his Lordship has always borne the reputation of acting with great judgment, and, by his bland an* persuasive manner, of exercising a considerable degree of influence over men's minds. His clergy appear well affected towards him, and disposed cordially to fall in with his plans But however well he may have acted hitherto as a diocesan, his conduct toward Dr. Fellmuth would seem to prove that, as metropolitan, he is not the right man in the right place. In the personalities to which he has descended, and the bitterness of spirit he has manifested in his different letters, he seems altogether to have lost sight of the high bearing which characterizes the prelates of the mother country. Nothing less than the utter rum of the Archdeacon's character will satisfy him. He returns again and again to the attack, and he rakes up things that really have nothing to do with the matter in hand, in order to justify his hostility How unbecoming in one to whom we ought all to look up I Whatever the Metropolitan may think, people will call this injustice and oppression, and his Lordship to the contrary, notwithstanding, they will come to the con- clusion that the Archdeacon was right, when, at Islington, he spoke of "the erection of a hierarchical structure in Canada," hostile to the best interests of onr church. A Churchman. > EPISCOPAL MISKULE [From the Quebec Gazette, September 10, 1862.] So long as the world continues, there will be differences of opinion in ecclesiastical as well as in political and other matters. From the very con- 59 > Stitution of man's nature, this must needs be. But wlieiever the ureattst freedom is allowed for all questions, ecclesiastical, political, or social, there we find true religion and happiness most abound ; and we are filled with the brightest auguries for the still higher advancement of such a -commu- nity. In the elimination of ideas in such discussions, what is best and true comes to be apparent. There is a necessity for such discussions, or otherwise all healthful action and intellectual vigor would disappear, and error and abuse become predominant. In a previous article we had occasion to characterize the rule of the pre- sent Bishop of Montreal and Metropolitan, as arrogant and tyrannical, as evidenced by its recent development in his attack upon Archdeacon Hellmuth for the fearless assertion of his opinions when in England, about several matters of interest to the Church in Canada, and especially the dangerous results of uprearing a hierarchical structure, which the Arch- deacon said, " would not tend, in his opinion, to strengthen the cause of pure Protestant and Evangelical truth,"— and which has only proved too true already, as the present controversy shews. We conceive that Archdeacon Hellmuth had a perfect right to exercise this privilege, and we will continue to characterize the pastoral letters which in consequence have fallen from his lordphip, as a gross abuse of the position which he assumes arrogantly, in virtue of his office as Metropoli- tan. Archdeacon Hellmuth, and every member of the episcopal church, have a right to express their opinions upon all matters of interest to the body to which they belong, and especially so when they fear that insidious efforts are being made to undermine and destroy the great truths of PFotestanism, its essential characteristic. It is open to the Bishop of Montreal, or any other person who may hold contrary opinions, to advance them, and to shew that the statements of Archdeacon Hellmuth are erroneous, or that he has been mistaken or misinformed. There is but one recognized way of doing this — by forcible reasoning, logical argument, and convincing proofs. It is not permitted in any such controversy to make attacks upon personal character ; and in England such a thing would place the aggressor beyond the pale of gentlemen. In the backwoods of Canada, in hasty squabbling of newspapers, we may witness many outrages upoij propriety in this respect, but these are generally regretted* and condoned. To the head of the 'hierarchical structure" of the episcopal church in Canada, is due the credit of having inaugurated this style of warfare as most becoming to its bishops and clergy. If there were independent minds in the church and not subservient to prelatical influences, we would have had the clergy, in all parts of the country, and the church periodicals, resenting the unprecedented course the Bishop of Montreal has pursued, as an attack upon the liberties of the whole body. 60 To show the abject state into which many have fallen, wo have only to quote the following from the " Ontario Episcopal Gazette," which charac- terizes the uncharitable and unchristian attack upon a faithful servant of Christ in language such as this : — " We cannot refrain from expressing great surprise at the Bishop of Montreal taking any further notice of what Dr. Hellmuth is bold enough to affirii). We can attribute such conduct to nothing less than that uncommon amount of gentleness, Christian charity, and forbearance which shine so pre-eminently in his Lordship, and by means of which he has not only endeared himself to his Clergy and Laity, but the ministers and people of the various denominations.— [Ed. 0. E. G.]" Such men would no doubt desire that the Archdeacon should permit himself, without the slightest resistance, to be the victim of Metropolitan ire and vindictiveness ; and were an Evangelical Bishop to be guilty of such an outrage upon the ordinary laws which bind society, these high churchmen would be the first to launch forth in no unmeasured terms against such a man ; but happily for the Evangelical body, no such charge can be brought against any Evangelical Bishop, either in the mother country or the colonies. By the by, for the information of our readers, we would mention that the editor of the " Ontario Eccl6siaetical Gazette," who comes forth as the champion of the Metropolitan, is an ultra high churchman, who when in the backwoods of this diocese, is said to have read the priestly absolution m his own house, every day, to his servant, from a particular spot, (we suppose the east,) dressed in full cannonicals. In the third pastoral letter of the bishop, he takes great credit for having made the clergy of his diocese undistinguishable for any adherance to party action ; and he boasts of having effaced from certain clergymen received by him from that pre-eminently evangelical association— the Colonial Church and School Society— all traces of evangelical principle. The policy of the Bishop is evidently to stifle all healthy action, such as the right of free discussion would give to the church ;-and from his pertinacity in the present controversy, he would make his clergy believe he has many similar thunderbolts to launch against the devoted head of any one who would dare to question his autocratic sway. SoUtudinem faciunt, etpacem appellant IS what the historian has recorded of the policy of the ancient Romans • and the Bishop too would have peace falsely so called, in the church while It would lose all health and vitality, and exist only iif a state of stagnation. The third pastoral, recently fulminated against the Archdeacon by the Bishop, ?ias been most triumphantly and successfully answered, rebutting with mi'.ubitable testimony, eye/-]/ charge and insinuation brought against mm. We have never known in modern times, in the Protestant church so determined a spirit of persecution to destroy the unblemished character of » i i ^ . r irVe only to ch oharac- servant of Bishop of Id eDough than that mce which he has not listers and aid permit Jtropolitan ! guilty of :hese high □as against rge can be lountry or d mention mes forth nan, who, le priestly particular 'or having e to party I received Colonial ^he policy i right of ty in the ly similar ould dare ippellant, Bomans ; ch, while agnation. n by the rebutting t against lurch, so iraoterof M^ -^- . f 61 nrmutf "f?" "?\": r '^t' '^ S' Metr^litan towards Archdeacon «o li.l ^^i ^'"^^ ^''" '^^°' *^"^«^ ^^"^"y ^"'^o^^ent, to rebut 80 completely every charge, as the Archdeacon has done, had they been similarly assailed. The reply of the Archdeaoon, which ^e repuwfsh on our first page, for the information of our readers, leaves no room Tdoubt II r. 1 .T ^" T' '^'^' ^^"^' controversy should be determined ; and, to adop the Bishop s words-thc credit of the Bishop's evidence has estTbUshtd "" ""^ ^' ^^''^ ""^ ^^' Archdeacon has been thoroughly In connection with the whole conduct of the Bishop of Montreal in this matter, we have never met with so flagrant an abuse of official position- that IS rehcd upon for the sole purpose of giving colour to personal charges which are at once proved to be utterly false and groundless ' .. Jnf ♦^T'"'''i ^f 7^ '" '° ''''^°"' ^"^ ^" ^^"^^ ^«^° i* 'against the dan- ger of trusting absolute power over their clerical existence and reputations to a Bishop who has proved himself to be wanting in one of the first quali- tZT* 1 position-ordinary discretion, and a proper deference and from him ''^'"'**"' ^^ °*^^''^ ^^"^ """"^ concientiously differ If either of the long-tried Bishops of Quebec and Toronto, and not a mere stranger m the country, had been at)pointed to the office of Metropo- litan, the episcopal church would not have suffered in public estimation as it has under the misrule of Dr. Fulford. If further proof was wanting that the metropolitan has entirely failed in making any unfavourable impression upon those who have for many years known the tried christian character of Archdeacon Hellmuth it is to be found in the address lately presented to him, expressive of the highest con- fidence m his worth as a minister of the Gospel-signed by the Chief Jus tice and all the Protestant Judges, the chief minister of the Cathedral and others, as well as the leading men of the bar, and the mercantile community of Quebec. ADDR^ SSES. ADDRESS TO ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH. [From the Quebec Gazette, Sept. 15.} It affords us great satisfaction to publish the subjoined Address to Arch- deacon Hellmuth. On the occasion of his departure from this part of the province, to occupy, in Western Canada, a higher sphere of duty, it must 62 be extremely gratifying to the Archdcp,C()n to receive, from so large and inllHential a body of signorn, so strong an attestation to hia worth as a minister of the Gospel. Among the subscribers to the docnnient, there are the names of many of our most eminent citizens — members of the judiciary and the bar, as well as leading men in our mercantile community j and we cannot permit the opportunity to escape without adding om humble assent to all that is expressed in their address, with reference to the excel- lent qualities of Archdeacon Hellmuth, whether in a public or private capacity. We have likewise, in the intercourse it has been our privilege to hold with hin, been deeply impressed with " the Christian kindness, candour and courtesy" which he exemplified ; and would add our earnest prayer for his future temporal and spiritual welfare. To THE Venerable Archdeacon Hellmuth, D.D. : Venerable Sir,— We, the undersigned, members of the Church of England and Ireland, in the Diocese of Quebec, desire to offer you, on the occasion of your departure from among us to assume a higher sphere of duty in another part of this Province, our tribute of regard and esteem for your character as a truthful and earnest minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which you have ever enforced, in all its simplicity, both by your preaching and the examplc'of your daily life and conversation during the many years you have gone in and out among us. We shall ever bear in affectionate remembrance the christian kindness, candour and courtesy which have always characterized your personal inter- course with us, as well as your active, liberal, and valuable co-operation in every good and benevolent work. It is, therefore, with feelings of deep regret tliat we contemplate the severance of the ties by which you hpve been connected with the Church in this diocese. But, while permitting ourselves the indulgence of these personal feelings, we look upwards to Him by whom all things are well ordered and sure, and expressing our belief that in his providence you have been called to a more important post of christian duty and usefulness, we beg to assure you that our warmest sympathies will ever follow you. We pray that God, both now and ever, may have you and yours in His holy keeping, and with affectionate regard we subscribe ourselves, Your very faithful servants, E, W. Sewell, Incumbent of Holy Trinity, Quebec. George V. Housman, Assistant Minister of the Cathedral. W. Agar Adamson, D. 0. L., Chaplain Legislative Council. James Samuel Sykes, Port Chaplain. A. J. Woolryche, Tnciimbent of Point Levi. Charles M. Fox, Assistant Minister of Holy Trinity. Frederick A. Smith, Clerk. C. P, Reid, Incumbent of Sherbrooke. .(. I ^ ^ 63 Edward Bowen, D. C. L., Chief .rustic.. Superior Court, Lower Canada. H. Black, Judge of the Admiralty. T. C. Aylwin, Judge Quoen's Bcncli, Montreal W. C. Meredith, J. Q. B. E. L. Montizambert, H. S. Scott, A. J. Max ham, Ed. Stavelcy, Chas. M. Tate, H. G. Joly, Wm. H. Jeffery, H. N. Jones, George Pemberton, W. H. Tilstone, J. Stevenson, N. H. Bowen, H. Pemberton, J. Bell Forsyth, Wm. Miller, J. P. Bradshaw, J. W. Dunscomb, G. W. Leslie Wood, A. D. Bell, Samuel Newton, Joseph White, Jeffery J. Wyatt, Chas. E. Knight, .H. 0. Austin, Thomas Holt, Edwin Jones, Henry Knight, G. W. Ellison, W. Spragge, William Hickman, Thos. Poston, W. Boswe ', Arch. Campbell, John Von Exter, Benjamin Gale, Wm. B. Valleau, H. N. Paton, A. 0. Buchanan, Henry Temple, A. Knight, Jos. A. Sewell, M. D., William H. Tapp, J. P. Taylor, W. H. Griffin, W. C. Scott, M. Sheppftnl,* William A. Curry, R. C. Pentland, P. A. Shaw, David I). Young, A. F. A. Knight, H. Gowen, Jr. W. Darling Camphill, Weston Hunt, R. F. Peniston, P. E Sheppard, Horace G, Dunlevie, John Sewell, John Tilley, Edward Poston, Jr. M, G. Mountain, Charles A. Scott, John Storey, Charles Little, N. H. Forrest, James Patton,Jr., C. N. Montizambert, W. Marsden, M. D. J. S. Budden, Edward B. Scott, Edward Burstall, W. H. Anderson, R. Pope, James Freeman, T. F. Nevin?, William Cole, Benjamin Prior, R: H. "W artele, J. Porter, J. K. Boswell, Paul J. Chi^rlton, A. Praser, Robert Loraas, C. Pentland, William G. Wu; tele, James Sealy. George CoUey, T. Lambert, W. H. Boomer, Nich Piton, Henry Atkinson, Joseph Bell Forsyth, Thomas Little, Henry W. Welch, William Rae, William Dunn, Thomas Lloyd, H. C. Webster, Moses Eadon, Thomas I^rris, F. H. Hall, William Robinson, L. Maclean, . Thomas Andrews, G. J. Blyth, Thomas Glover, William Bonham, John Darlington, S. Dallimyre, William Drum Ben Cole, Jobu Racey, M. D., George F. Bowen, E. Clarke, Alexander Winter, George Bottom, A. G. Woodward, Thomas Blatherwick, William Gerrard Ross, George Burns Symes, J. Gre.aves Clapham, W. W. Scott, Samuel J. Shaw, James F. Wolf, W. J. Newton, C. Judge, J. W. Leaycraft, John Jones, F. C. Vannovous, Robert H. Smith, George Okill Stuart. G. T. Gary. My Dear Friends,-! am not able adequately to express my deep sense o. tuc great kindness which, thiuugh you, is conveyed to me by so many tnends,in the addr^ ^b just presented to me. It is very gratifying to me, although conscious of many shortcomings that you, who have known me for so many years, and had fre.j >ont opporl 64 tunitles of obaemng my conduct, bear testimony that, both in my preaching and frequent intercourse with you, I have connnended myself " aa a truthful and earnest minisU r of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," If, in the gracious providence of God, 1 have been instrumental in effecting any good, to Him alont— " the author of all good"— be nil the praise. I shall often, with grateful recollection, think of you and of the many acts of kindness and friendship I have experienced since my sojourn with you, and of your over ready and liberal response to my apr)eal8 for the cause of Christ. Offering you again, and through you to my other friends, my grateful acknowledgments for your kindness, and praying that the God of all grace may abundantly bless you and yours, both in time and eternity, I remain, your affectionate friend and servant in Christ, I. IIELLMUTH. To the Rev. G- V. Housman, A. J. Woolryche, and Messrs. 0. N. Mon- tizambert, H. S. Scott, T. Blathcrwick, M.D., &c. &c. Quebec, Sept. 1. 1862. ADDRESS TO ARCHDEACON HELLMUTH. [From the Quebec Gazette, September, 18G2.] The subjoined Address to Archdeacon Hellmuth has already appeared in our columns, but without the reply. We now copy both from the Toronto Globe. The sentiments contained in this document,a8 well as the number of respectable signatures attached to it, must have proved very gratifying to the Archdeacon. The trying ordeal through which he has passed called for sympathy, and it has been given both by the clergy and the laity. "We admire the manly independence, especially of those clerical signers, who, in expressing their sympathy with Dr. Hellmuth, thus distinctly avow their attachment to that evangelical party, so bitterly sneered at in high places. We understand the Archdeacon will leave hereon Monday next fur Boston, there to embark for England, where he will remain during the winter months. We wish him a safe voyage across the deep, and that his visit to the mother country may be productive of all the benefit he desires, to himself personally, and to the diocese with which he is connected : fTO THB EDITOB OF THE GLOBE.] The following is an Address from the Evangelical clergy of Canada West to the Venerable Archdeacon Hellmuth, and the Archdeacon's reply: — > La tn 05 > Tit the Venvnihle hunr lIMmuth, D.D., An Ik f euro » »j' JLtrnn. Venkiiaiilf. and OkaiiSir,— Wliili' wo feel thnt the testimony most valued by you under your niont tryiii;i fircuiriStiiiuH'.-', is Miat of a con.icuMico void (»!' otfoiieo berorc ( Jod and man, wo arc also assured that you will ' 'udcrvalue the 8ynii>:»thy of your brethren in the niinisiiy. We have boon niuoh pained by the ii p^iiilion: which your advocacy ot evangelieal truth has brought on y(tu, ai. I ■ hilc w ; unf'eiKnedly sympathize with you in the trials liirouith whieh you ( > ., 'jvjou in oonse luenee pasisinj?, wo liereby assun^ ynu t-iat we fully and heartily ap'ree with tlio sentiments expressed in the Lord lUshop of ITuronV' charpo en the subject, and that nothing' that has transi)ired shakes our confidence in you as a successful advocate of those principles which are by us held d(Mir. And we earnestly pray that lie who has ])romised to be with his j)eop!e in their troubles and tlioir ditlieuities. may support, sustain and eomlort you under the tryin,i? circumstances in which you arc now placed, and may make this as well as all other things, to work tojrcther uot only for the advancement of trur ti^iiuion in,t,'ei>er;d, but for tlie sujiport and (iomfort ol' your own soul, and the increase of your elheiiuu-y jia a minister o.' that pure branch of Ohrist's (Munch to which it is our happiness to belong'. (Sipnod,) ('has. ('. nroiip;li, Arclidciti'iin of'Tyoiidoii. ^Vlll V. Dmiioiilins f[. J. Ctrasset, H.I)., M. Boomer, LL.l)., Iliinil Dinii, I'). L. Klwood, .M.A., liiinil Dean, llichard Flood. M.A., J. Walker Marsh, .M.A. F. A. O'Meani. L.L.I).. ??. B. Ardagh, A..M.. St. George (JuuHi.l.l, LL.I)., F. M. Handy's, D.f)., iv'iiral Denn. .). Rluirtt, D.D., James {.'. Uslier, FUiotl GrasseM, .M.A., J. Smith, B.A., Vj. Baldwin, .M.A., 11. A. Montgofflery, H.A., John Kennedy, M.A., Benjamin Bayley, A.B., Robert J. Roberta, A.B., E. Sullivan, AW., S. J. Boddy, M A., Alexander Samson, J. Padfield, W. Wood, E. E. Newman, Andrew Fisher, Andrew Jamieson, George Keyes, W. B. Rally, Shem du Bourdien, J. P. Hincks, I ■lohn iliint, Joel T. Wrifrht, Ale.Xiindcr I'ults, J. C. .McCoUum, M.A.. Wm. (Mot worthy, John .Mr Lean, .M.A., Peter Jacoh.^, J;niies ("arnneh.'U'l, James Clinnne, W. Brookniau, Robert Arnold, Thomas iriif;hcs, T. J. M. W. niackmnn, D.C.L., (leorge M. Innes, C. L. F. Ifansel, James Hutchinson, John Hclden, M.A., Stearne Tighe. A.B., T. Green, LL.D., F. Mellish, Sept. F. Ramsey. M.A., I. C.Baker, H. 0. Cooper, B.A., Hans. Caulfield, R. V. Rocrers, M.A., Rural bean, F. W. Dobbs,. S. Benson Kellogg, Wm. B. Evans, B.A., David Armstrong 66 THE ARCHDEACON'S REPLY. My Rev. andDeaii Brethren,— Most sincerely do I thank you for the address just received, expressing your brotherly synipatliy witli me in the trials I have had to pass through. I cannot find language adequate to give utterance to my grateful sense and high appreciation of your assurance of continiu'd and unshnken confi- dence in me. While I could not but highly value such a testimony at all tiu)cs emanating as it docs from you, many of whom have known me intimately ever since my fn * advent to (^anada, I need hardly say that such a testi- mony is an unspeakable comfort to me at this particuhir juncture. Praying that our heavenly Father may make .all things to work together for the furtherap..<3 of His glory, and give us abundantly of His grace, that we may be faithful witnesses of His truth, I remain, My Rev. and Dear Brethren, Your grateful and affectionate Brother in Clirist, (Signed,) I. Hei.lmuth. To the Veil. Archdeacon Brough. M.A.. Bevs. H. J. Grassett, B.D., M. Boomer, LL.D., R.D., F. A. O'Meara, LL.D., And 57 other clergymen in Canada West. II THE METROPOLITA I AND THE ARCHDEACON. [From the Toronto Globe, Oct. 1, 18G2.] The pamphleteering controversy between Bishop Fulford and Arch- deacon HcUmuth seems now to be closed. The Metropolitan has issued his third pastoral, and the Archdeacon his third reply, and there the matter rests so far as the controversy between the original parties to it is con- cerned. But in attacking Dr. Hellmuth, the Bishop let some of his blows fall upon third parties, who appear disjioscu to take another mode of pro- ceeding than that adopted by the Archdeacon, in order to obtain redress for injuries recei\ed at his lordship's hands. To blacken Dr. Hellmuth's character, the Bishop brought a charge, implicating both him and his fnther-in-laWi General Ev-itis, of [viontrcni, allegii''": that tliev liad iointly laid a trap for him, and hud conspired, under the guise of desiring to promote the spiritual welfare of a certain district of the city, to obtain from him his consent to a measure which was only intended to enhance the value of the (reneral's property and to obtain a church in the city for his > / 67 > son-in-law. (ien. Evatus is a much-rcspectcd meinbor ol" the oommuuity auioug whom he resides, and his name occupies a place on tlie Army List among the oldest general officers in the British service. The bringing against him of so Ibul a char.ue, which substantially anioiuited to this, that he had inatlo a pretended religious ze:d a cloak ibr interested, sordid, and personal motives, n.-.turally excited a good deal of indignation in the minds of his friends and relatives. ITis son, Major Kvans, of the IGtli Regiment, wrote to the Bishop, re(iuesting him to withdraw the inr.mtations upon his father's character, and intimating that, if he failed to do so, proper steps would be taken to prevent its being injured by his attack. To this letter no reply was vouchsafed. The matter was then taken up by Mr. Adam Crooks, the well known barrister of this city, who is married to a daughter of Gen. Kvans, and we have before us a ])ublisiied letter,^ address- ed by Mr. Crooks to the Metropolitan on the 1st Septendier last, in which, with lawyji like precision, he sets forth the grievance, the baselessness of the charge, and the absence of anything to justify his lordshi])'s attack, and concludes by distinctly requiring, on Ceneral Evans' behalf, the unequi- vocal withdraw;d of all his lordship's clarges against him. From the fact that Mr. Crooks h:is thought fit to publish this letter, we presume that the amnulv honourable which it demands has not been made, and the public will therefore be treated, in all probability at no distant date, to the edify, ing spectacle of the Angli;;an Primate of all C:n.ada appearing in a secular court as defendant to a libel suit for slandering the character of one of the highest in station of the cluirch-membcrs within his Metropolitan cure. While it woidd be unbecoming in us to atten\pt to prejudge the issue of the suit, we thirdc it c;inuot be ([uestioncd that the very fact of his having brou.<^ht'such an action upon himself, and such a scandal upon the Church of which he is the ccclcciastical head in this Province, argues on the part of the Metropolitan, at the very least, a sad lack of that discretion and Christian charity which might have been looked for in one occupying so prominent a position. In his third ])astoral, the Metropolitan does little but reiterate the old charges with re-nvd to which theiv wmv already ample evidence before the public to enable th.em to form an intelligent opinion. Any new evidence wliich T)r Fulford ad.luces is of too trivial a character to exert any influence in altering that oi-inion, and the Archdeacon's third letter, therefore, except with a view to thoroughly exhausting the whole subject, was only so much superfluous labour. One of the original charges prererred by the Metropolitan, to damage the Archdeacon-s reputation as a man of integrity and truthfulness, was that in England he hiul described as a u-s^eiul and godly minister u certain Canadian clergyman, whose removal from his missi-^M Pr Hellmuth hnd himself rocommeudod on account of his having been "guilty of mak-'i.g untmthful statements. To this clergyman the 68 Bishop applied for evidence against the Archdeacon and m !"« thnd pastoral he produces a letter from him, obtained with hat view But on the same day on which he wrote to the Bishop, he wrote also to Dr Hellmuth another letter, which is given in the Archdeacon's rcpb^ and which states circumstances that completely u'pset the whole charge. In connection with that part of the controversy which had reference to negotiations with Gen Evans about the erection of a church in Montreal Dr Hellmuth had stated that the General requested him to remmd hi^. lordship of two long intet-views with him on the subject ; on one of the occasions the Bishop,with Mrs Fulford. was spending- an evening at the General's residence, and fully and freely conversing on the whole matter with the General himselt and Dr Hellmuth. This was stated to show that everything was done to make the proposal intelligible to the Bishop, and that any conspivacy to entrap him into a scheme which he did not understand was altogether out of the question. The Bishop replies to this that he has for thirty years kept a daily journal, and that \iv. finds an entry on the 28th July, I80I, that he drank tea at (General Kvans'. met Dr. Hellmuth and others, and had some music. This evening i-arty, he says, took place six months before he heard about the church, au^l he declares that there is not one word of truth in the assertion that he ha.l fully and freely conversed with the Archdeacon and the General on the sabject. Speaking from memory, and from the evidence of his journal, lie. declares that the only interview he had with General Evans was in January, 1852, and that it was a short mtei^icw, because the General was unwell and unable to enter into details of business. His negative evidence is met by the positive evidence of the Archdeacon, the General, and Mrs. Crooks, who, in a note given in Dr. Hellmuth's third reply, says she distinctly remembers the Bisho]) coming to her father's residence one evening for the jmrpose. and that the conversation on the subject occupied a considerable space of time. It is certainly unfortunate for the Metropolitan that on a question of veracity he should have placed himself in a position in which the public have to decide between his own positive denial on the one side, and the e ; t 5 third But on jUmuth ti states on with th Gen. ith had wo long iop,with ice, and himself done to >ivacy to til or out ■ty years "^51, that and had )cfove he of truth ;hdcacon from the lad with iiterview. business, hdeacon, cllmuth's r father's »n on the fortunate ve placed L his own on on the jredit but ainst Dr. ocated in an air of n deposed conduct." appeal he lut on hip stances of had been that this 1 I 1 \ ' i > I r 69 would have boon any discredit to him. It is nut correct that Chini(iuy was deposed, as Bishop Fulfovd says, for " unrainisterial and unchristian conduct ;" he was deposed for cuiitumacy in not ai.pcaring to answer the charges against him, a very different matter, and there is good reason to sup- pose that he was treated with undue harshness by the Chicago Presbytery. The remainder of the i)astoral has reference chiefly to proceedings in the Provincial Synod, about a canon defining the powers of a ^Metropolitan. His statements on this point appeal' to be satisfactorily answered by Dr. Hellmuth. In carrying on the controversy, the Metropolitan, in his zeal to attack the personal character of the Archdeacon, seems very soon to have entirely lost sight of the matters originr^ly at issue. What at first brought down the Metropolitan's anger on the head of Dr. Hellmuth. were the assertions l>y the latter in a si)eech at Islington in England, to the effect that the teach- ing in Trinity College, Toronto, was unsound and dangoi and that p]vangelical clergymen of the (Hiurch of England in the i, .lasli North American colonies were, comparatively si.eakiiig, few in numbi^r. If these statements were untrue, it might have been tliought that the Bishop Avould not only have sought to break the force of Dr. Hellmuth's testimony by saying tliat he was a witness deficient in integrity and reliability, but that ho would have undertaken directly to disprove tliem. In the whole con- troversy, however, he undertakes n(>thing of the sort. He expends his strength in making a fierce personal onslaught on Dr. Hellmuth, which that gentleman has very successfully repelled. But as to the teaching of Trinity College, he says—" I am not .sufficiently master of this subject in its in-escnt state to enter into a. detailed review of it." And as to the l)aucity of Evangelical clergymen, he speaks of three such clergymen in Toronto, three in Montreal, one iu Quebec, &c. His condescending on these numbers jiroves in fact the very statement of which he complains ; while as to Trinity College, after all the controversy th /e has been on the subject, after all the pamphlets which have been published by the Bisho]) of iluron. Provost Whitaker, and others, if the Metropolitan is himself still unable to form an oiunion, he ought not to complain that the Arch- deacon of Huron, like his diocesan, has not only formed an opinion, but has been outspoken enough to proclaim it. The whole course of the controversy certainly seems to indicate that tlie object which Dr. Fulford chiefly aimed at was to injure Dr. Hellmuth, and that the defence of Anglican institutions and xVnglica, clergymen in Canada was but a secondary con- sideration, used only as a peg on which to hang his denuiiciations of the Archdeacon. Having read all the pamphlets on both sides, we cannot see that Dr. Hellmuth's character has at all suffered. On the (|uestion liow far the Metropolitan's own reputation has suffered by his attack recoiling upon himself, we shall net venture to pronounce an opinion. The furtlier r 70 question whether hk pinrhint for iN'imphlot-writing will make liim a loser not only in rriiutation but in poeket, is one which will probably be decided by a jury of his countrymen. THE METROPOLITAN AND Dll. IIELLMUTli. [TO TllK EDlTOlt OF TlIK (JUEItKC OAZETTE.] Sni,— I have leeeived a number of your pajier in which a]>pears Dr. Hcllm'uth's •' lloiily to the Third Letter of the Metropolitan," and in the leadin:: article of the same paiier, I find your own animadversions on the " vexed (luestion" between these two 1 wl;ih to say a word or two on this question. T ought to premise. Lhat 1 am what the Archdeacon and, pevliaiis, ycmrself. would call a " Tlidi-churchman." This circumstance, unlikely as it would seem to os(! of that fell nature. He had an object to plead, and he ].leaded it. He con- sidered that there, arc not enough of what are loosely called *' E\ angelical" clergymen in Canada, and he was sent to ask for help to pi-ocure more. He did what ho w^as sent to do ; but as to casting aspersions upon the hiird-working and ill-paid clergy of Canada,! don't believe this (entered his head. Or, take the case of the colleges. No one can suppose that the Arch- deacon meant t(» include any other than Trinity, Toronto, in his charges of unsoundness in doctrine. And viewing at its wurBt. hi.s judgmeut of this institution, was there no shadow of an excuse foj- hiii ? Hud not liis i i i I i 71 Bishop solfiiunly declared thut lie could imt ai)prove iMr. Whitnkcr's tcachini;? nnd that ho would send no son of his to be cdiK/atod tlievc ? Grant that the Bishop was wrong, as most iieoplo, whose oninion is worth having, think he w.'is, and that the Archdeacon v.-as ;iccin'din, lihort\' oC ex})ressing them ? The truth fears no exposure ; and 1. lor one. dare to express my regret, that a man's i)rivate character should have been criticised and dissected in order to find reasons why his oj^inions should not be heard without the imputation of insincerity and truthfulness. I think for these reasons that the Archdeacon has been unfairly treated ; and when tlie clergy and laity are invited to sign an address to the ^letro- politan expressing their admiration of his manner of carrying out the measures of his government as the head of the Church in Canada, the invitation seems to be, at least, i/l-tiiiicd, and many will decline adding their signatures who, a few months ago. would have been glad to join in this mark of respect. Y(mr obedient sei'vant. ;« r I ^ i ARCHDEACON HELLMUTII AND THE HUllON COLLEGE. [From the London (Eng.) Record, Nov., 1862.] The plans and principles of the projected Divinity College for the Diocese of Huron, and the objects and circumstances of Archdeacon Hellmuth's visit to this country, in the early part of the year, are matters fully before our readers. The Archdeacon having made certain progress, in the arduous work of raising the necessary funds, embarked ibr Canada ; but at the reriuest of the Bishop, he has again re-visited this country, to promote the completion of this great and necessary undertaking. We need hardly say that the present pressure on home benevolent resources, has made the time of his se(!ond visit inopportune. We arc, therefore, doubly gratified in publishing the intelligence communicated in the subjoined letters, whence it will appear that the munificence of a single doi\or enables the Venerable Archdeacon to relimiuish his immediate appeal, and to return with a glad heart, to inaugurate the new college in Canada : [to the editor of the record.] London, Nov. 13, 18G2. Sir,— You have ever evinced such a deep interest in the Diocese of Huron, that I am confident that you and other Christian friends will rejoice to learn that God has most signally blessed ray present Mission to 72 tliis conn I ty, on behalf ol' tiic Diocosc of Huron ; one Chri;tiaii fticiid prcsciitiii.i; iiH with the munificent sum of £5,000, for enclowinj;- ihe l^iviiiity Chair in the Huron College. To God be nl) the praise ! ICnoIo.sed is a copy of tlio letter fruni the donor of this liberal .;i('t, as well as of the letter from my own Bisho]), previous to my departure for this country, which may interest tho; e kind friends who so liberally aided us durin.i;' my previous visit. T am. my dear Sir. Yours, alread; r'Hk"/ ohliirati sn, I. llKi.i,Mr"rir. COPY OF A s/ETTER FROM THE DONOR OF £5,000, «0 THE TtTKON fOLLEOE. November Sth, 18G2. 31 Y Dear Arohdeicon, — I have henvd with deep interest ol' the plan for establishing a Divinity College based on the Protestant and Evangelical principles of the Article,'^ and Liturgy of our Church in the Diocese of Huron. I have been strongly impressed with the importance of the design and the weight of those motives which lead the JJisLop of Huron and • yourself to desire the speedy commencement of such an Institution. The reasons for desiring it are very weighty, from the wants and circumstances of that diocese alone. But attached members of the Church in this country must naturally take a still wider view. The known facts with regard to the Theological tone and teaching of Trinity (.^ollege, Toronto, proved by public documents, and confirmed by tlie open pi'otest of the Bishop of Huron, must make all those in England wlip love the Church of England for the Gospel's sake, desirous to provide a supply of clergymen well grounded in the doctrines of the lleformation, and free from all dangerous germs of Romanizing theology, who may ftithfuUy carry out in Canada the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, and the protest against the merely sacramental religion which our Reformers embodied in our Articles, and sealed at the stake with their own lives. You gave expression in this country a year ago to your sense of real danger to which our Church in Canada is exposed f;