# 
 
 %* 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 
 1.4 
 
 |M 
 1.6 
 
 *^ 
 
 ^. 
 
 / 
 
 If,. oX 
 
 
 Hiotographic 
 
 Sdences 
 Corporation 
 
 33 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 8724503 
 
 V<^^ 
 
 \ 
 
 :\ 
 
 v 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ^<^V^ <> >. '"^nS 
 
 %^? 
 
 
 
 -% 
 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The 
 toth 
 
 The Institute has attempted 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 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul^e 
 
 D 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 
 Cartes giographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que ble'je ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relii avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure aerrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distorsion 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 
 lofs d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela itait possible, csis pages n'ont 
 pas it6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppldmentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6ti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la methods normaie de filmage 
 sont indiquis ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagies 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Q Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tache'ias ou piqudes 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 r~y^Showthrough/ 
 L^ Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 D 
 
 Quality inigale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du matiriel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Mition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partieilement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'arrata, une peiure, 
 etc.. ont M filmtos d nouveau de facon d 
 obtenir la meilleure iimage possible. 
 
 The 
 poss 
 of tf 
 filmi 
 
 Orig 
 
 begi 
 
 the 
 
 sion 
 
 othc 
 
 first 
 
 sion 
 
 or il 
 
 The 
 shal 
 TINI 
 whi< 
 
 Mar 
 diffi 
 enti 
 beg 
 righ 
 reqi 
 met 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de rMuction indiqui ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 SOX 
 
 .7 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproducsd thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Canadian History Department 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and In Iceeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 L'exempiaire filmA fut reproduit grAce h la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Metropolitan Toronto Library 
 Canadian History Department 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6ti reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exempiaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last 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 wi«h a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impressicn ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impressicn ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ^signifie "A SUIVRE". le 
 symbole V signifie "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 clich6, 11 est fiimd & partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 . 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
s 
 
 m 
 
 p 
 
 C-t.-^c 
 
 2 ? ^ . ' ,t} 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 The Ridit Rev. the Lord Bishop of Huron 
 
 't 
 
 BY 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Ontario. 
 
 
 • ■. ■ ■ 1, 
 
 
 "'■■'■MI'll'W''*"^ 
 
 Hf ww ji ■ .Iff *■ ii -tjmii iiii iif ! M"^'J ' ''-^^jg j 
 
m 
 
 P\Vs>\^~\ 
 
 NO^'29 :::3 
 

 To tlio Right Rev. tlie Lord Bishop of Huron. 
 
 My Lokj): — 
 
 1 received, when in London, a panipldet sent to nie by 
 Yonv Lordship's direction, containing remarks on an Address 
 delivered by me to the Synod of iny Diocese in hist Aprih 
 Though I Qc)nsidered tliat the perversion of my meaning, and 
 tlie general nnfairness of your Lordsliip's criticisms, called for 
 reply, yet I felt that I could safely leave my language to be 
 interpreted by nnprepuliced men; and as I never hope for 
 much success with prejudiced ones, I determined to let the 
 matter rest, and make no rejoinder. 
 
 But, to my astonishment, your Lordship read yonr attack on 
 my Synodical Address before the Coimcil of Trinity College, 
 assembled on October 7tli, for the purpose of receiving your 
 charges against the Provost's teaching and his replies. Not 
 being responsil)le to the Council for any remarks I may think 
 tit to deliver to my Synod, T thought your Lordship's conduct 
 in bad taste, and could only account for it by supposing that 
 you read your strictures on iny Charge as a formal challenge to 
 me. The Council had met to receive a report of your Lord- 
 ship's objections to Provost Whittaker's teaching, but not to 
 listen to criticisms on my Synodical Address; but as they 
 were compelled to listen to the latter, I must now, in self- 
 defence, set myself right before the Church and the Council of 
 Trinity College. 
 
 Your Lordship read the following paragraph before the 
 Council : — 
 
 " It has been asserted also that the reasons which I have given for object- 
 " ing to the teaching of Trinity^ College are the ostensible, not the real, 
 " grounds of my opposition. This I regard as a most serious charge. The 
 " form iu which it has been lately put by the noAvly consecrated Bishop of 
 " Ontario, is, that charges have been brought against the teaching of Trin- 
 " ity College 'ostensibly on the ground of its having a tendency towards 
 " ' Komo, but really because it has not a tendency towards Geneva.' Such 
 " a statement as this concerning my motives can only be met as I now meet 
 
 jlf?^SjfJ?W|l^; '• 
 
 fmSSBSSamm 
 
 i^iWi ii TW I IWl 
 
" it, with a most pointed and Bolemn denial of its truth. To search into the 
 " heart ia the prerogative only of one, and to Ilim, with all reverence, but 
 " with the utmost confidence, I can appeal, when 1 state that the chargea 
 •• which I have publicly brought against the teaching of Trinity College 
 •' are the true reasons which have influenced me, and that the idea (»f 
 *' objecting to the College because no CalvinJHtic theories were taught there 
 " never once entered my head." 
 
 My Lord, 1 never stated that you wilfully di:Ao;iiisGd your 
 real motives, or that you acted hypocritically. I nuule no 
 personal attack whatever. My aim was to uccouut fur the 
 strange anomaly of a Bishop of the Church ditfci'iug tVoiu the 
 great majority of the Council of Trinity College and two of 
 his brethren on such an apparently plain question, as whether 
 certain doctrines had or had not a Eoinish tendency. The 
 Protestantism of the gentlemen who sit in the Council is unim- 
 peachable, and my own I can answer for ; so that some expla- 
 nation is necessary to account for such a wide difference of 
 opinion on so plam a subject. That your Lordship honestly 
 thinks that the teaching of Trinity College tends towards 
 Eome, I firmly believe ; but it is allowable for men who are 
 surprised at this to endeavor to account for the phenomenon. 
 Your Lordship's motive in attacking Trinity College was 
 undoubtedly a feeling that the teaching was llomish. But 
 what inspired that feeling ? There is something in your Lord- 
 ship's habit of thought and theological bias which makes you 
 see what neither the Bishop of Toronto nor myself can see. A 
 prejudiced man may know that his motive is honest, yet he 
 may not know what inspired it. He may solemnly appeal to 
 his conscience, but if he have not instructed his conscience 
 aright, he may be a fanatic. Now, my Lord, I think that they 
 who have attacked Trinity College in any publication that 1 
 have yet seen, have ha,d their consciences formed and their 
 motives inspired in a theological school commonly called Cal- 
 vinistical. I may be mistaken in this supposition, but I ha\'e 
 a right to hold it and assert it till some proof to the contrary is 
 given. My reason for giving the Synod of the Diocese my 
 views on this point was simply that I perceived your Lordship 
 had gained converts to your way of thinking, from that great 
 mass of Churchmen who are rightly very jealous for the Pro- 
 testant character of the Church. Your Lordship had also all 
 the advantage of the popularity gained to a cause Ashich 
 proposed as its task the exposing the Popery of a Church of 
 England Institution ; and in proportion as the attack was ren- 
 dered popular, 80 Avas Trinity College endangered and its 
 
 % 
 
 wfljsissaasawsosEassfrw : 
 
»arcli into the 
 Bverenoe, but 
 it the charges 
 I'iiiity Collc'go 
 ,t tluj idea (»f 
 ) taught tliere 
 
 ;nisG<l your 
 I nuido no 
 nut tor the 
 ig t'ruui the 
 uud two of 
 as wlietlier 
 eucy. Tlie 
 c'il is uuhu- 
 some expla- 
 itt'oreuee of 
 ip honestly 
 ids towards 
 en who are 
 lienonienon. 
 yollege Avas 
 mish. But 
 your Lord- 
 makes you 
 Lian see. A 
 lest, yet he 
 y appeal to 
 conscience 
 dc tliat they 
 ation that 1 
 d and their 
 called Cal- 
 but I have 
 ) contrary is 
 Diocese my 
 ur Lordship 
 I that great 
 for the Pro- 
 had also all 
 ;ause whicli 
 a Church of 
 ick was reii- 
 red and its 
 
 8 
 
 defence made uninviting. I felt that, aft a resuonftiblc officer 
 of tiie College, I was bound to defend it if I thought that it 
 deserved defence. Accordingly, I endeavored to show- that a 
 false issue hud been raised ; that the question was not rrotest- 
 •intisni a"-ainst Uomanism, but Calvinism agamst anti-Calvm- 
 i^in • and L am glad to iind that I am not singular m my 
 oniu'ion, but that nudtitudcs now attribute the unhappy con- 
 troversy to the (xruim t/itolof/kmn, and are convinced that a 
 Protestant cry c{in be raised sometimes as falsely for theological 
 as for political i)urposcs. 
 
 Your Lordship deeply deplores my treatment ot this contro- 
 versy in the folloAving language:— 
 
 " It 13 deeply to he deplored that the Bishop of Ontario should have 
 " thouiiht it expedient in his first solemn address to his Clergy and Laity to 
 " have brought forward a question of Calvinism, concerning which, he truly 
 " savs, that the peace of the Church in Canada has not heretofore been dis- 
 " tul-bed by it. None of the aged Bishops in this Province ever considered 
 " such a proceeding necessary, and it surely would have been wiser to have 
 " followed their good example, than, on the unsound biasof a false assump- 
 " tion, to disturl) the internal harmony of the Church by the introduction 
 " of a question which had never at any previous period been thus officially 
 " agitated in the country." 
 
 The reason, mv Lord, why none of the aged Bishops ever 
 considered Bucli 'a proceeding necessary, is, I tancy, because 
 they never had provocation. Your Lordship 8 attack was 
 unprecedented, and so, perhaps, is the defence. But it it be 
 unwise to disturb the peace of the Church on a question ot 
 Calvinism, it is more unwise to disturb it by imputations ot 
 Eomijai teaching in n Church of England Institution, and by 
 arguments Avhicli fail to convince tw^o Bishops and some of 
 the principal Protestant laity in Canada West. 
 
 My L(jrd, sarcasm directed against the comparative youth of 
 a man thirtv-seven years old, has not much edge; indeed the 
 contrast between the conduct of the "aged Bisliops and my 
 own, could onlv have point if your Lordship is prepared to 
 prove that the "aged Bishops condemn my Synodical address. 
 This your Lordship does not attempt to prove ; indeed it would 
 be a futile task, as I have the high satisfaction of knowing that 
 mv address received the marked approval of the Lord Bishop 
 of Toronto. I hope, however, that it is my earnest desire that 
 ao-e mav bring me wisdom, and experience may add to my 
 knowledge, as it is but too evident that in spite of great experi- 
 ence men often are very ignorant. Impressed with these views, 
 I further hope that I may be withheld fl-oni hastily denouncing 
 
 "iiwii^ 
 
Ill 
 
 ahrolherV teimts, hikI, tor tlio creflit of iho, Oliiircli, that. T may 
 not rusli iiiti) tlii; liomisli coMtnncrsy willxmt :iii adequate, 
 appiHM'iation of tlui prineiplus vi' thu I'rayer Book uimI tlie 
 Englisli Kofoniiatioii. 
 
 1 our Lordnliij) ohjectt^ also to my lanujiia^e respect in j>; tlio 
 evidence on which your attack was hasecl : — 
 
 "Tho Bisliop (tf Ontario, however, in his aililross to his Synod takos no 
 •' notice of the Provost's letters, whicli were ttu! suhject of Iho resolution 
 " before the corporation, but sneaks only of tiio evidence which had been 
 " addnccd previous to their publication, lie says, ' To my surprise and wor- 
 " row I found that it was made up of sccond-Iiaiid extra(!ts supplied from an 
 " apocryphal catechism by anonymous and disaifeotcd students.' Thus rais- 
 " inp; what may be termed a false issue and diverting!; attention from the real 
 "subject then ])oforc the corporation, najncly, the published letters of tlio 
 " Provost. If by 'apocryphal' his Lordship meant 'fa))ulous', this epitliet 
 "cannot apply to the work spoken of, for the questions in tlie catechism 
 "wcr J copied from the Provost's, whicli ho lent for that purpose, and the 
 " answers were compiled from notes carefully taken by tlio students and 
 " corrected from time to time. As to the catechism bein<i; 'anonymour.', I 
 " am surprised that the Bisho)) of Ontario should so soon forget that at the 
 " mcetinp of the corporation of which ho spoke, I produced a copy of tliia 
 " catechism, which I stated had been compiled by the llcv. J. Middleton 
 " and Messrs. Jones and Badgley.*' 
 
 A very little attention to my address would luive shown 
 your Lordshi}) that when I used the lanL;:uai!;e above (juoted I 
 was jiistifyin<»: my vote given September 27th, 1S60, and allu- 
 ding to the evidence t/ioh before your Lordship, Avlien the Pro- 
 vost's letters had not as yet been printed. I reassert my 
 de8cri])tion of that evidence, and allirm that my statement is 
 not affected by the tact that long after your Lordship's first 
 attack on Trinity College you were supplied with evidence 
 which cannot be justly called anonymous. At the thne of the 
 Council meeting held in Sept. 1860, the catechism on which 
 your Lordship based your charges was apocryphal and its com- 
 ])ilers anonymous. \iy apocryplud I do not mean "fabulous" ; 
 my meaning was that as those books which arc called apocry- 
 phal arc not by the Church "applied to establish any doctrine,"* 
 so such a catechism should not be applied to establish any 
 charge of heresy or false doctrine. The compilers of the cate- 
 chism were anonymous in Sept.lSOO, and it is beside the (pies- 
 tion to say tliat your Lordship Informed ns, Fel). 1862, from 
 whom yon received it. I therefore did not "forget" the infor- 
 mation given ns ; I only thought it irrelevant to speak of it in 
 connection with occurrei ces which took phicc sixteen months 
 
 * Article 6. . 
 
5 
 
 , that T may 
 :m a(1('(|ii!it(i 
 .lok and till'- 
 
 spcctiiij;- the 
 
 ^yiiod tiikort no 
 llio rosolutiun 
 liiiili had boon 
 irprlso !ind Hor- 
 ip|tlicd IVoni an 
 ts/ ThuH raiH- 
 n fnun tlio real 
 d letters of tlio 
 is', this opltlict 
 the catecliism 
 irposo, and the 
 1 students and 
 'anonyniour,', I 
 get that at the 
 a copy of tills 
 r. J. Middloton 
 
 liavc bIiowii 
 \(i (luotcd I 
 )0, and allii- 
 hcu tlie Pro- 
 rcusscrt my 
 statement is 
 I'dship's lirst 
 ith evidence 
 J ihiH' of the 
 m on which 
 and its com- 
 "falndous"; 
 lied apocry- 
 ,^doctrine,"^'" 
 stablish any 
 ) of the cate- 
 de the ques- 
 1862, from 
 it" the infor- 
 peak of it in 
 teen months 
 
 previously. I wuk f!;i ving an account of the controversy chrono- 
 \omvA\\\ vnmom to the meeting; of Februsiry, isr)2, when lor 
 
 ,^., .dly in 
 the lirst time the 
 
 hut it 
 
 ^„,, .,,„„ cutochism ceased to be anonymous, 
 
 continues in my estimation to bo deci(h'dly apocryphal. 
 
 Wmv Lordship fails to understand what 1 mean by tlio wonl 
 "dlsalfected" students. \ meant tlmt most probably, nuy, I 
 concluded certainly, stu<lcnts who couUl ij^lve private inlormu- 
 tion to the detriment of the dollej^'e nmst be disuilected to or 
 dissatisfied with the Colle^'e. lint I am really uippy to tmd 
 that in this instance I liave been mistalvcn ; and that though 
 the evidence of these students was used to damage the ( ol- 
 le-'c yet tlicy do not draw the same concbisions from then- 
 own evidence us your Lordship, and that their sympathies arc 
 still with tlieir Alma Mater. . 
 
 Yoiu- Lordshii) goes on to intinuitc your disboliet in my 
 assertion that " 1 went to the Council meeting held last tebru- 
 " ary for the purpose of taking the whole (piestion into consid- 
 " oration, with my mind made up to no course but that 
 " of urging a fair and critical investigation into the charges 
 " against Provost Whitaker." And your reason for not be- 
 lievincr my word is that " it must have been evident that tho 
 " Hishop of Ontario came to the meeting prepared to second the 
 "amendment of the Chief Justice, the efltect of which was to 
 " give the sanction of tho Corporation to the things contained 
 " in the letters of the Provost." My Lord, I did go to the Coun- 
 cil with the determination I expressed; but also prepared to 
 second Ifneccsmry the amendment of the Chief Justice, lo 
 be cpiitc un]n-eiudiced in inrpiiry is compatible with being 
 prepared to resist an unreasonable resolution ; and I deny^ 
 " that the effect of my amendment was to give the sanction of 
 " the Corporation to the things contained in the Provost s 
 " letters." On the contrary, the language of tho amendment 
 is explicit in 7wt committing the Corporation to the details of 
 the Provost's second letter^ I give the amendment, because 
 unless I do so, some may imagine that I misrepresent your 
 Lordship : — 
 
 " That it be resolved, that tho Corporation of Trinity College does not 
 " assume either to represent or to identify itself with the views of any 
 " party in the Council. That the opinion expressed by the Cor^^oration on 
 " the first letters of the Provost vindicated tho writer from the imputation 
 " of teaching, doctrines not allowed by the Church, and to that opinion the 
 " corporation still adheres. That although the second letter of the Provost 
 " was not submitted to the corporation, its publication was authorized as 
 "stated by him. And, although the Corporation is not committed to its 
 " details, it is not aware that it can be shown to be contrary to the teachmg 
 
«!■ 
 
 6 
 
 "of tlio Chuivli : that tlio «!orp«)i'ation cannot, therefore, entertain any 
 " propoHition to condemn any portion of cither of these letters without a 
 '*(*pecifi(! statcMiont, in writin;^, of liio ohjectiona tiiat arc urged againHt 
 " thcnj." 
 
 If your l.onl.sliin draws iVoni llu', ruro^oiuf; ainendiuciit tlio 
 logical (lediiL'tiuii tluit by it tin; wincticm ul' tht- (\)r[)«»nition ih 
 ^'Iveii to tlk! thiii^Hi coiitaiiicd in the Provost's two letters, it is 
 not siirpri.sin^- that your deduction from the letters theniselvcH 
 nliould be ratlier htrained. 
 
 1 am sorry to he ohh«::;ed to say that your Lordship doi'suot 
 fairly state my words when you say "that the IJibliop of Ontario 
 " to m^ surprise several times repeated that nothing could bo 
 " coneulered daui,'erous which was not contrary to the teachiuf^ 
 " of the (Jhiirch of lui<»;land." 1 appeal to every member of the 
 Couju'il when I dvny that 1 used tiiose words. Your Lordship 
 repeatedly said that "you did not charge the Provost with 
 " teacbin;j; anytliin,<^ heretical or anything contrary to the doc- 
 " trines of the (!hurch of England', but that you did charge 
 " him with teaching doctrines (liuigerous iti the extreme^ 
 Whereupon 1 said that '''' I could not imdct'stand how a doe- 
 " ti'inc could ho daix/crom in the cdreme and. yet 7iot heretical 
 " nor contrary to tha teaching of the Church of England.'''* 
 Whether 1 am able to understand your Lordship's position or 
 not does not perhaps signify, but you a])parently pay but a 
 poor compliment to the Church m which you preside as a 
 Bishop. 
 
 Y^onr Lordship goes on to cite instances to prove your 
 strange position, viz., the J>ishop of Exeter v. Gorham, and the 
 Bishop t>f Salisbury v, Williams, &c. I am free to admit that 
 these cases may ])rove that in the ojnmon of Bishops doctrines 
 may be <;onsidercd highly dangerous and yet not be contrary to 
 the fonmdaries of the Clmrch. But it seems to ine that your 
 Lordship cited cases which tell against yourself, and that as 
 the law decided against the Bishop of Exeter and may 
 decide against the Bishop of Salisbnry, so the law if appealed 
 to may decide that your Lordship is not justilied in crushing 
 a clergynuin and dej)riving him of his otHce because 
 yoa consider his doctrine dangerous. The absence of a Court 
 which, according to your Lordship, does not exist in Canada, 
 should make us cautious lest we carry a point by appeals to the 
 prejudices of the public wliich we could not carry by due 
 course of law. 
 
 As regards my assertion " that your Lordship once proposed 
 " to submit the whole case to the Lord Bishop ofKupert's Land 
 
 ■?{(*)«?!«»*?(«?«!!"■ 
 
e, entortain any 
 lutttM'H without a 
 '0 urp;o(l aj^aitiHt 
 
 iiondmeiit tlio 
 [-ui'[)onition ih 
 
 letters, it is 
 ;rs tlieniselvoH 
 
 Inliip (icH'K not 
 i(»p of Ontario 
 ling conld l)c 
 ) the teaching 
 neniber of tho 
 'our Lonlsliij) 
 Provost witli 
 ry to the doc- 
 ou (lid (diargo 
 the CL'iranr.'''' 
 id how a dof- 
 ' not heretical 
 of Em f land y 
 )'« jjosition or 
 tly pay but a 
 preside as a 
 
 > prove your 
 I'ham, and the 
 to admit that 
 hops doctrines 
 1)0 contrary to 
 nie that your 
 , and that as 
 tor and may 
 w if appealed 
 
 1 in crushing 
 tKce because 
 ICC of a Court 
 3t in Canada, 
 appeals to the 
 carry by duo 
 
 3nco proposed 
 .upert's Land 
 
 « for hiB decision," T admit that I was in error, though the 
 mistake is luirdonable, as I scarcely thou-dit it probable that 
 your Lordship would select the Hishop of Ruperts Laud simply 
 as a witness of an inttu'view. Any Canadian gi'iitleman would 
 have answered the i)urposo Oiiually well. 
 
 1 now must comment on the most extraordinary ciause m 
 your Lordship's address, viz: — 
 
 " In thp courNO vf tlio dlHcussion I put to tho Uisliop of Ontario a question 
 "with relVron.-e to tho jmmphlot ..f lli<* I'rovont, whidi was tlio sul.|.«ct ol 
 " mv resohition. I askwl his Lordship twice whether tluit bool; eon- 
 •'ta'ined heresy? Ho twice iloclined to answer the <|uestion, U inuy 
 "appear strange that 1 should put such a (piestion to his Lordship 
 " The reason was that tho venerable Arclideacon Hrou-i, who then sat 
 "near me, had informed mo that in a convorsation with the IJishop ..t 
 " Ontario, his Lordship hud sti-.ed to him tliat the view advoi^ated in the 
 "Provost's letters eonoerning the rc-eption of the plonlied humanity ol our 
 "Lord, hy the faithful in the Lord's Supper, was 'heretical. I Ins wi 1 
 " account for my putting tho (piestion, and may also account lor tho nnwil- 
 " iinjfiiess of tho liishop of Ontario to reply." 
 
 My Lord, I have never yet been afraid or ashamed to speak 
 out my honest sentiments nuuifiilly. J therefore spurn the 
 insinuation that I declined to answer your Lordship s question 
 because I had once admitted that the Provost's book contained 
 heresy. In the course of our discussion in the Council vour 
 Lordship did not ask me twice " whether that book contained 
 " heresy ?" but hohling the book in your hand across the table 
 towards me, your Lordship said: "'Now you know that this 
 " book contains heresy." I did not answer— not because 1 had 
 ever told Archdeacon Brough that tho Provost's views on the 
 subject of the reception of the "glorilied humanity oi our 
 blessed Lord in the Eucharist were heretical, but because 1 
 was dumbfoundered at your Lordship's attempt to entrap me 
 into an admission which you dared not make yonrselt. 
 
 As regards Archdeacon Brough's statement, 1 have only to 
 say that i distinctlv remember the conversation lie alludes to 
 when I did admit liiy dislike of the term "glorified humanity, 
 on the ground that "it was new to uie in coitnc' -" witii the 
 reception of the Eucharist; but the assertion tliu: . called the 
 Provost's views on this subject heretical, I atiirm to be a lubri- 
 cation, r 1 1 • 1 1 
 It is most devoutly to bo wished that your Lordship iiiid 
 come at an earlier date to the determination " never to dese- 
 " crate the public assemblies of the Church in your Diocese b,j^ 
 " makino- them the arena of personal attack ui)on any man ; 
 it would have saved your Lordship from making the gross 
 
 ^?S*r^'5?w*f^ 
 
 wm 
 
 %mm^ 
 
8 
 
 attack upon Trinity College, or rather its Divinity Professor, 
 which you did make in your public Synod. It is idle to say 
 that the topic was forced on your Lordship by the indiscretion 
 of a clergyman or the questioning of a layman. Had your 
 Lordshi]) replied to both by saying that you intended to use 
 your constitutional ])owers in remedying evils which you sup- 
 posed to (ixist in Trinity College, no fault could be found witli 
 your conduct * but as the case now stands, no promise of future 
 abstinence from personal attack will suffice to make the Church 
 forget that Trinity College is on the defensive, and that your 
 Lordship is the aggressor. Lideed, after the wholesale nature 
 of your assault on the Provost, it is enough to provoke a smile 
 ihat you should assume an air of injured innocence, and say 
 that " whether in Synod or elsewhere, I shall never desecrate 
 " the public assem])lies of the Church by making them the 
 " arena of personal attack." 
 
 I am, 
 
 Your Lordship's faitliful servant, 
 
 J. T. Ontario. 
 
 Amvington House, 
 Kingston, October 24th, 18G2. 
 
 liii 
 
fcy ProfesBor, 
 is idle to say 
 3 indiscretion 
 I. Had yonr 
 snded to nse 
 licli you sup- 
 e found witli 
 iiise of future 
 e tlie Churc'li 
 id tliat your 
 ilesale nature 
 »voke a smile 
 ice, and say 
 ^er desecrate 
 ig tliem the 
 
 I'vant, 
 
 [". Ontakio.