MP 
 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 ^/ 
 
 <_ 
 
 ^ A 
 
 k 
 
 ^< 
 
 
 ! 
 
 I I I.I 
 
 11.25 
 
 |io "^^ liiHI 
 
 Mm 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 ^J^ 
 
 /;^ 
 
 V 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WCBSTI^IN.Y. 145S0 
 
 (/!«) •72-4503 
 
 
 '^ 
 
.<.*!« 
 
 
 ! 
 
 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 ct bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically u-'ique, 
 which may aitor any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couieur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommag6e 
 
 □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture rostaurte et/ou peiiicul^e 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque ^ 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes giographiques en couieur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 ReliA avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight bindiig may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re iiure serrde 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 ajout^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mats, iorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6td filmtes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppidmentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'll lui a 6tA possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mMhode normale de f ilmage 
 sont indiquts ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 P&ges de couieur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages sndommagies 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou peilicul^es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxei 
 Pages d6color6es, tachet6es ou piquies 
 
 I — I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 rri Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 □Pages detached/ 
 Pages d^tachdes 
 
 fr 
 
 J 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality in6gaie de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppidmentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seuie Edition disponible 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 T 
 
 V 
 
 ^ 
 
 d 
 
 ei 
 b 
 ri 
 ri 
 
 D 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Los pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont iXh film6es A nouveau de fa9on d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked bolow/ 
 
 Ce document est fiimA au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X 
 
 
I 
 
 ktails 
 I du 
 lodifier 
 r une 
 Image 
 
 f 
 
 The copy filmed here hat been reproduced thank* 
 to the generoaity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 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. 
 
 Orlglrial 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 with a printed 
 or Illustrated Impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — •i^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol y (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 
 rnethod: 
 
 L'exemplaire illmi f ut reprodult grAce k la 
 gAnArosit* de: 
 
 La bibliothique des Art. 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 ves 
 
 Les images sulvantes ont «t(6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetA de l'exemplaire film*, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 fllmage. 
 
 Les exemplalres orlglnaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est ImprlmAe sont film«s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en termlnant soit par la 
 dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'improssion ou d'illustratlon, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autre* exemplaires 
 orlglnaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la 
 preml#re page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impresslon ou d'illustratlon et en termlnant par 
 la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles solvents apparaltra sur la 
 dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, jtc, peuvent Atre 
 fllmte A des taux de reduction diffArents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre 
 reproduiv en un seul ciich*. 11 est film* A partir 
 de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A drolte, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenent le nombre 
 d'Images nAcessaire. Les diagramme*i suivants 
 illustrent la mAthode. 
 
 irrata 
 to 
 
 peiure, 
 n A 
 
 n 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 ' -■ 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
V 
 
 / 
 
 
REPORT 
 
 OP A 
 
 PUBLIC DISCUSSION 
 
 AT SIMCOE, 
 
 July 16 and 17, 1851. 
 
 ON THE 
 
 / 
 
 OFIergn ^tsexms anir Hectottes. 
 
 'm 
 
 
 *»,. 
 
 PUBLISHED AT SIMCOE, N. CO. C. W, 
 
 -- ^ 1851. ■ 
 
»f1 
 
 if '^.. 
 
 1 r 
 
 I if fl 
 
 if « . 
 
MEPORT of a Public Discussion at Simcoe, on Wednesday and 
 Thursday, July 16 and 17, 1S51, upon the Clergy Reserve Ques- 
 tionf the Rectories, Voluntaryism, and Church Establishments. 
 
 TAKEN IN BHORT-HAND BV OEORQE SHEPPARD. 
 
 1 
 
 FIRST DAY— Wednesday, July 16. 
 
 Shortly after II, JV.M., the following Clerg%-inen, parties to the Diacusfion, took 
 their places around ihe table in the Court-Houee, which was filled with spectators: — 
 
 Advocates of EndotDtnents — Rev. Wm. Bkttridoe, Rector, Woorfstock ; Rev 
 
 Benjamin Crontn, R*ctor, London ; Rev. Francis Evans, Rector, Woodhouse 
 
 Rev. Gbo. Bill, Presbvterian, Simcoo. 
 
 • . » 
 
 Advoeatea of Voluntaryism — Rev. J. Gundrv, Baptist, Simcoe , Rev. A. Duncan, 
 
 Baptist, Vittoria ; Rev. J. Winterbotham, Baptist, Woodstock ; Rev. W. Landon, 
 
 Baptist, Woodstock ; Rev, Jas. Ptper, Baptist, Toronto ; Rev. J. Gilmore, Baptist, 
 
 Peterboronprh ; Rev. Dr. Burns, Free Church, Tcronto ; Rev. J. Roaf, Congrega- 
 
 tionalist, loronio , Rev. W. Ryerson, Wesleyan Methodist, Simcoe; Rev. James 
 
 Richardson, Episcopal Methodist, Toronte : Rev. W. Ormiston, United Secession, 
 
 Clarke. 
 
 On the motion of Rev. F. Evans, seconded by Rev. J. Gundrt, Israel W. Powelt,, 
 
 Esq., of Port Dover, was called to the Chair, with Messrs. William Wallace and 
 
 Oliver Mabee as Referees. 
 
 The Chairman expressed his sense of the honour conferred upon him ; and of the 
 importance of the duties which were imposed upon him, coupled with a hope that he 
 would be supported by his colleagues and by all present. He then read a Proclamation 
 which had been issued by J. B. Grouse and T.W.Walsh, Esqrs., Justices ot the Peace, 
 pursuant to a Requisition, calling the Meeting under the provisions of the Act of 
 the Provincial Parliament, entitled ** An Act to provide for the callins and order It/ 
 holding of Public Meetings in this Province, and for the belter preservation of the 
 puMic peace thereat," and intimating that all persons attending tlie Meeting would be 
 within the protection of the said Act. It had been arranged by mutual consent that 
 there shculd be no ejaculations or other expressions of feeling on either side ; and it 
 was hoped that all excitement and unpleasantness would thus in a great measure be 
 avoided. 
 
 The Rules that had been agried upon wore then read, the principal ones being 
 those which fixed the time allotted to the respective Speakers. Twenty minutes 
 were to be allotted to the leaders on either side, on introducing the various Propositions; 
 • speaker on either side was then to occupy fifteen minutes ; and the leaders were to 
 have ten minutes each to reply : the whole time appropriated to each Proposition 
 being an hour and a half. 
 
 After prayer by the Rev. B. Crontn and the Rev. Dr. Burns, 
 
 Rev. F. Evans said — Mr. Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen — In making the 
 pfiliminary arrangements Tor this discussion, it was agreed that a few minutes should 
 be devoted in the first place on our side, to explain our reasons for giving this 
 4:haU«n£e — if 1 may eo caU it ; after which gentlemen on the opposite side are to 
 
li^iiro them for accepting it: It ia knoMm<that (He propoinl oviginated with me, and F 
 abould be somewhat embarraaaed to*day i£ £did uo( feel that I migh t &d6pi the languagv 
 of one of old and any For what have I novyr done is there not a cause? There does 
 indeed appear to bo abundant cause why we who hold the sentiments that we are 
 known to entertain should manifost a readiness to defend them upon the principle! of 
 reason, justice, and the Word of God. My hope and confljenoe is that wo are enterinfr 
 on the undertaking with a sincere prater that God' will defend the right. I was fint 
 led to wish that a (air discussion of this subject shoaid take place in consequence of 
 discovering that, notwithstafnding all that had been said and written upon it, there 
 still reinained a very large a«aount of ignorance. Intelligent individuals have owned 
 to me that notwithstanding all the speaking and printing of the last twenty yiars, they 
 had never had the subject fairly brought before them. Wljat they did hear or read 
 was now a little on one side, and by-and-bye a little on the other side ; the only efTec t 
 produced being a conviction that there must be misstatement and false reasoning' 
 somewhere, though for the most part they were at a loss to tell where. Now, it 
 appears to mo, that the way to r.seist these plain, honest people, is to bring the facta 
 and the arguments into closer proximity. Such a course will bring what can be 
 advanced on both sides into more immedialojuxta position ; but, moie than this, I 
 shall be much mistaken indeed if we do not find that what has been boldly advancetj^ 
 in what may be called one-sided meetings, will be revised and corrected before it be 
 produced iaa meeting like this. The greatest orator that ever lived used to call a 
 distmguished' cotemporary and frequent antagonist, the pruning hook of his periods. 
 If there be any gentl(;man who intends to play the part of Demosthenes to-day, he 
 cannot do it without remembering that he has his Phocion on the other side of the 
 platform. Such a reflection, coupled with the fact that speakers wilt be limited as to 
 time, will have a tendency, 1 hope, to make gentlemen on both sides avoid redundancy 
 and clap-trap. We shall endeavour to bring forward what is to the purpose, and 
 avoid advancing thnt which a well-furnished antagonist would have no diiiiculty in 
 pulling to pieces. The proceedings of this day are to be embodied in a rept rt which 
 is to go to the public with the stamp of authenticity put upon it by the signature of 
 the Chairman, of the two gentlemen who have consented to act as Assessors, and 
 of the gentlemen on both i^ides who take part in the discussion. I hope that thiis 
 document will serve as a Vade Mecum — a guide to every hoaest mind throughout the 
 Province — in all matters where duty calls for the exercise of an enlightened ani 
 conscientious judgment on the subject in question. It was in the hopo that such a 
 document would bo produced, containiug the pith and marrow ofwhatcould be said ou 
 both sides, that I proposed the discussion, which I did with th? lull concurrence of somo 
 valued brethren in the Ministry. At the same time, i have considered the objection, 
 that may be raised to the proceeding as it regards us of the Church of England. 1: 
 may be said, " What if you fail?" IJut to this there can be but onepnswer — we do not 
 intend to fail. Again, it may be said, ** Ihis proceeding is unseemly in men of your 
 calling." *' The servant of the Lord should not strive.'* But the duty of answerins: 
 this objection devolves on the gentlemen of the other side. Our intelligent an) 
 learned opponents have been for some time zealously labouring to procure tii * 
 alienation of the Clergy Reserves. \n proof of this, I need only refer to tho 
 Examiner newspaper of the 15th of May, 1851), passim, which lies on the table 
 before me : and to other newspapers of more recent dates. The argnment-" 
 that will be produced by the Reverend Gentlemen who take so prominent a 
 part in these proceedings, to prove that there are cases where the servant of tli*^ 
 Lord "may strive," will all of them apply with still greater force to our case ; pr» 
 that we may leave to them the task of furnishing our apology. We wish to retain a 
 property which we feel convinced of right/ belongs to us, for the express purposo o? 
 prooMting by its aid the spiritual wclfare^f the Province, and we feel that it is omv 
 duty to use all proper means to protect it./( I will mention another objection. It ha=» 
 been said, " to what purpose is this discussion on h. question which must» after all, bo 
 settled at the hustings.'" Suppose that the tendency of this discussion should be to 
 estaibHsh the justice of our cansp, and 8nppo'«e that with our arguments before thetn 
 a m^ority ia many constituencies vote contrary to justice, we shall only iiave another 
 
illaitretion of tlra fact that in mattera of this kind the laofuage of the majority it. Sic 
 volo sic h^to — $tU pro ratione voluntas: "thus I choose that it shall be ; thus 1 
 command that it may be : my good pleasure stands instead of argument." But I do 
 not thinli it at all unreasonable to hope that there are many who wish to be guided 
 in the discharge of their duty as freeholders by truth and justice. Three and twenty 
 years' residence in the midst of a population essentially Canadian, and those years 
 spent, too, in the most friendly intercourse with persons of all denominations — aye, 
 m the not unfrequent discnarge of the duties of my calling towards persons of all 
 denominations, conducting family worship in their nouses, praying with them in 
 fickness, rejoicing with them in prosperity, condoling with them m affliction, setting 
 Christ's Gospel before them in public, baptising tnoir children, end burying their 
 dead ;— rl say that three and twenty years thus spent have given me such a knowledge 
 of Canadian character as leads me to believe that many would be influenced in the 
 recording of their votes by what they sow was right and just, nciwithstanding the 
 bias ef prejudice, education, or inclination. A few words more I have done. An 
 intelligent Minister on the Voluntary side said to me the other day something in 
 substance like this, " To what purpose is the discussion of the questions involved in 
 the first three propositions (Theological ones), since the subject has been treated of 
 by the very ablest men in Great Britain ?" To- this I answer that with the highest 
 opinion of those who are to manage this part of the discussion on our side, I still 
 - expect that they will bring forth from the treasury of their well-stored minds, more 
 things old than new. But while no reader of the public prints can bo ignorant of the 
 fuct that it is the fashion to treat our theological views of State endowments as 
 something untenable and exploded, it is ot no small importance that by means of thi.s 
 discussion we should show that we stand on Scriplural ground, and that we stand 
 upon ground that has been occupied by men of vast erudition and gigantic powers of 
 mind — by McNeile in the present day, by Chalmers in recent days, and by hundreds 
 besides of the excellent of the earth. The propositions which we on this side appear 
 to sustain are as follows : — 
 
 1— That the #hdowment of tlie Church by the State is not repugnant to the Word of God, 
 nor to the spirit of Christianity. 
 
 2— That the State being a divinely appointed instrument for the promotion of the glory ot 
 God and the "relfare of mankind, is bound to acknowledge, protect, and support the 
 Church, but that in the discharge of this duty the rights of conscience are to be held 
 sacred. 
 
 3— That before we abandon the principle of endowing and supporting the Church, satislactory 
 evidence should be alforded of tlie righteous tendency of the Voluntary syttom, anJ of 
 its su fficiency to supply the spiritual necessities of the nation. 
 
 4— That ivis evident from the wording of the Statute Geo. III., cap. 31, that the Clergy iof the 
 Church of England were intended to be designated by the use of the term, a Protestant 
 Clergy ; and that the settlement made by 3 and 4 Vic, was a compromise by which the 
 Church of England relinquished a part of her just riglU. 
 
 5— That neither the Imperial Parliament nor the Provincial Pai'liament can be accessory to 
 the alienation of any part of the property secured to the Church of England by the 3rd 
 and 4th Vic, without great and manifest injustice. 
 • 6— That irrespectively of the uses to which the Clergy Reserves were to oe applied, the fact 
 of their having been reserved has proved a great boon to the actual settlers m Canada. 
 
 Rev. Jonathan Gondry — In rising on behalf of the Baptist Ministerial Conference 
 it may not be amiss to notice ^the reasons which induced them to commence the 
 diBcassion of the Clergy Reserve question. These were, their conviction that the 
 union of the Church with the State is both unscriptural in its nature and injurious in 
 its tendency— that the Church of Christ is a spiritual kingdom, and should depend fo r 
 its pecuniary support upon the free will ofTerings of its members. They conceived 
 also that the Clergy Re.serves have the same evil tendency as State endowments of 
 religion have m older lands — that they have already produced much evil instead of 
 'S^od to the community, and if left unopposed will involve the Province ultimately in 
 all the evils that accompany National Churches wherever they exist. Anxious for 
 the preservation of the Church of Christ from so baneful a connection as that with 
 the State— anxious that the Christian Ministry maybe preserved in the independent 
 position which the character of their office requiiJs them to sustain, and not to be 
 
m 
 /* 
 
 
 degraded to b« the mtr* hireliogi and serTaota of any Stato ^vornment— anxiouf 
 that Christianity raay appear, especially in this youthful Province, in her primitive 
 •implicity and native vigour, difiusiag her unalloyed blessings to the children of meq. 
 promoting their temporal peace and prosperity, securing their spiritual and eternal 
 aalvatiou — and thus accomplishing the fnds of her advent, *' peace on earth, good 
 will to men, and glory to God in the highest." Entertaining these views, without 
 any reference to party politics or to the political aspect of the times, the Baptist 
 Minipterial Conference conceived the present period a suitable and pioper one for the 
 agitation of the subject ; a period when those who differed from them were making 
 new and great efforts to preserve if not to increase their present emoluments, arising 
 from the Clergy Reserve fund ; a period when many who had immigrated into Canada 
 during the past few years, are comparatively unacquainted with the origin, the 
 history, or tendency of the Clergy Reserve grant ; a period, too, when many who 
 were formerly very zealous for the appropriation of these funds to secular purposes, 
 appear to have lost at least a portion of their zeal, whether from regarding the 
 triumph of their principles as hopeless, or from altered views of the subject, we cannot 
 tell. Under these circumstances, the Baptist Ministerial Conference conceived that 
 it would be^'riminal in them to remain any longer silent. They therefore appointed 
 a series of public meetings, to be held in the churches of their own denomination, 
 wliere they were accustomed to labour, for the discussion of the Clergy Reserve 
 question, and to proceed in the exercise of their constitutional right and privilege of 
 petitioning the Imperial and Provincial Parliaments to appropriate the Clergy Reserves 
 to some secular purpose that may tend to the general good of the Province — such as 
 the secular education of the whole people, without reference to sects or creeds. 
 Whilst conducting one of these meetings in the Baptist Church, Waterford, the Rev. 
 Francis Fvans requested to be allowed to take a part in the proceedings. He declared 
 he rose to support the following resolution, which had been moved by the Rev. A< 
 Duncan, and se :onded by the Rev. A. Slaght : "That this meeting considers it to 
 be a matter of great importance that the religion of Christ, the Son of God, should be 
 Bupparted now as it was in Apostolic times, and duri, g 300 years of the Christian 
 era, in a voluntary manner, and nol in the way of exaction, coercion, and unjust 
 taxation." It is but justice to remark that though the Rev. Gentleman declared he 
 rose to support the above resolution., the arguments, the illustrations, and the anecdotes 
 with which his speech abounded had all of them an opposite tendency. 
 
 Rev. F.Evans — This is a one-iided statement, the correctness of which I deny ; 
 I made no statements beyond a general view of the subject. This has no bearing, 
 however, on the matter before us. 
 
 Rev. J. GuNDRV — I think you will find it has a bearing on the subject, I am now 
 setting forth the circumstances and reasons which have led to this discussion. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burns — Mr. Evans can have no objection to allow our friend to finish 
 his statement, as he can afterwards interpose a civocai against receiving it with implicit 
 confidence, if such a step be deemed necessary: 
 
 Rev. F. Evans — I object to the statement. " , ' 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burns — I move that Mr. Gundry be allowed to proceed. 
 
 Rev. J. Gundry — At another of the meetings of the above series, held in the Baptist 
 Church, Simcoe, the Rev. F. Evans (having previously intimated to some members 
 of the Conference his intention) made a proposition to have the whole question of 
 the Clergy Reserves publicly discussed on equal terms. At this meeting there was 
 much confusion, — the only one of the whole series that was accompanied with anything 
 of an unpleasant character. The conduct of many who wye opposed to the object 
 for which the meeting was convened was anything but commendable or reputable, 
 and we have no doubt has yielded no pleasure or satisfaction to their minds, upon 
 mature reflection. Notwithstanding the confusion which prevailed in the meeting, it 
 was agreed that a public discussion should take place. Since that time, the rules to 
 be observed in debate, the propositions to be discussed, the choice o\ chairmen, end 
 he time and place of discussion, have been most amicably and satisfactorily agreed 
 

 \ % t. t t 
 
 upon by both pftrtiei. ' Th« reaaoni which iaduoed the Baptist Miniaterial Confarcnc* 
 to accept the ehallenge given by the Rev. ¥. Evans may be inferred from their 
 attachment to the principles which they were engaged in promulgating when the 
 challenge wsu given. They are petrectly willing to submit the principles they 
 entertain in reference to the Voluntary principle and the Clergy Reserves, to the 
 test of public scrutiny, conscious that if they would not bear investigation — and that, 
 too, of the most critical and severe character, they could not be scriptural, nor 
 worthy of further countenance. Again, they conceived that such a discussion 
 as the one proposed would bring before the public a great amount of important 
 information upon which they roieht rely, and that it would be the means of regulating 
 and establishing the public mind, of preserving and extending the influence of civil 
 and religions liberty in the Province. Again, they could not but hope that to a certain 
 extent, however humble it might be, such a discussion would have a tendency to free 
 the Church of Christ from some of her earth-born entanglements, which impair both 
 her beauty and useiulness, and operate as hindrances to the fulfilment of our Lord's 
 sublime prayer, that all His disciples might be visibly one, that the world might be 
 brought to believe in Him. These are some of the reasons that ha^e prevailed with 
 them to accept the challenge of the Rev. F. Evans. And that this discussion might 
 hot be regarded as too sectarian in its character, they have invited the co-operation of 
 several distinguished Clergymen ofotber denominations than their own. Consequently, 
 the Baptist Ministerial Conference and their kind and talented friends, staad before 
 you this day, prepared to defend the following propositions :— 
 
 1— That State endowments of Religion in any form are anti-Scriptural. 
 
 2— That );overnmfntR are the result of human necessities, and not the agent o? instrument 
 
 designed of God for the direct or indirect control of religious faith and opinion, which 
 
 are to he based on the Word of God only. 
 3— That the Voluntary principle in the Church, for its pecuniary support, has Clirist's exprcs n 
 
 sanction, and has proved adequate to all tlie necessities tliat have occurred (or its 
 
 maintenance aud furtlieiance. 
 
 4— That the term "Protestant Clergy," used in the Imperial Statute of 1701, must have been 
 used in contradistinction to Roman Catholic, and not intended to be restricted in its 
 application to the Clergy of the English Cliurch. Tiiat the term "ProtesUmt Clergy," 
 benig intended to exclude Roman Catholics only, the settlement made by J and 4 Vic, 
 was an act of injustice, and so far from being a compromise, was a fraud upon those whu 
 were not assentaig parties to the arrangement. 
 
 &— Tliat the 57 Rectories were establislied in violation of the public faith, contrary to the 
 instructions of the Imperial Government, and at variauce with the oft-expressed wishes 
 of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Tipper Canada. 
 
 6 — That the Imperial and Provincial Parliaments have power to appropriate tlie Clercr 
 Reserves to any secu'ar purpose that is adapted to promote the general welfare of the 
 Province, such as the secular education of the whole people. 
 
 7 — That the Clergy Reserves have proved a source of bitter contention to the various religions 
 sects, diffused a blighting influence over the Churches wliich have participated in them, 
 and !mpo<led Missionary enterprise, and the general good of the Province. 
 
 Chairman — It is your turn now, Mr. Evans, if you desire to make any further 
 explanation. Perhaps it may have been considered that it was my duty to interfere 
 before ,* but I think that where difTeronce of opinion arises, the most convenient way 
 is to reserve explanation until the close of the speaker's observations. 
 
 Rev. F, Evans — It may be the better way merely to enter a protest against the 
 statement; and if anything happen afterward that ought not to be admitted, to move 
 that it be expunged Tlrom the report. With reference to the excitement in the Baptist 
 Chapel, I do solemnly declare that it was tirt^t produced by the marked personalities 
 with wnich I was attacked ; and with regard to my challenge, as it is called, I think 
 it right to state that it was generally intended to apply to gentlemen of all denominations 
 who chose to take part in it. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burns — Allow me one or two minutes to say that although I appear here 
 at the request of the Committee, as a member of the Free Presbyterian Synod of 
 Canada, it is perfectly understood that there are points on which our Synod, as well 
 as the members of it who may be present, may not see their way to the conclusions that 
 are implied in the statements of either party. We agree in the great principle of the 
 
' 
 
 I 
 
 !, 
 i'r 
 
 approprittlox «f iho R^aenres in a different way then that which ha« been hitherto 
 ■anctioned. ■" " » •"- ••■' •-' » ■ •- ....'.,.• . ,. 
 
 Rev. F. EvAKs— Really, this la moat irregular. 
 
 Chairman — Order. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burrs— Allow me juat to aay that 1 do thia to exculpate myaelf from the 
 charge of having Bccbpted he invitation on the grounds, out and out, of the friends 
 with whom I am associated. I come to plead oxciuiively for the abolition of the 
 Rectories. 
 
 Chairman — I am afraid that 1 cannot allow this to go any further. Theae matters 
 muat be explained and agreed upon between yourselves — that is, the partiea who are 
 to engage In the disoussion . If these explanatory speechea were allowed here, a great 
 deal of unnecessary discussion would take place, and the matter would neifer be 
 brought to a close. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burnb — The arrangement you suggest has taken place already. 1 have 
 given all the explanation I desire to give. 1 was anxloua to take my seat here on 
 understood grounds, to aave myself from being charged with inconsistency in anything 
 1 may afterwards say^ 
 
 The Court-IIouse being now crowded, and the heat excessive, a motion was 
 made for an adjournment to a neigbouring grove, where a platform and a largo 
 range of seats had been prepared. This was objected to, however, and was finally 
 overruled. 
 
 The Chairman having read the first proposition on the Voluntary side. 
 
 Rev. A. Duncan rose to commence. He said — I rise under a pressure of feeling 
 which perhaps it would bt> burdensome for you to listen to, or for me to attempt to 
 describe. I feel, as my bicthren around me no doubt feel, that to us is this day 
 committed a most important trust — namely, to defend the truth of God against the 
 influences and traditions of men. And feeling the importance of the position that we 
 occupy — our responsibility to the churches, and our higher responsibili:/ to the Saviour, 
 I am disposed to hope that every word that is uttered will be spoken with becoming 
 reverence, and under the influence of a holy feeling. In the first place, I shall be 
 permitted to assert the supremacy of the Word of Uod is absolute in this discussion. 
 Whatever may be the authenticity and the authority of documents, and historical 
 evidences, and acts of parliament, our great statute book here must be the atatnte 
 book of Heaven ; and wherever the authority of man has interfered — whether with 
 the best intentions or in carrying out a subtle policy — with the statutes of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, we are bound to maintain tho one, and to pray God that the other may 
 be withdrawn. We have a positive rule on this point in Deuteronomy, 18 chap., v 
 18 and 19, where speaking of one that was to succeed Moses, the Lord says : ** I 
 will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and I will put 
 my words in his mouth, and he shall ^peak unto them all that I shall command him. 
 And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he 
 shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." This shows the sanction and 
 authority with which Heaven accompanies the revelation of its own truth ; and 
 wherever the Lord Jesus Christ utter anything Uke a declaration or a guidance, human 
 wisdom in such circumstances will not be required or accepted! The aupremacv, 
 then, of Christ in His own church is, a truth on which all His servants delight 
 to dwell, and when grace is given, they rejoice in yielding obedience to Him. 
 We find in Matt jw, ch. 17, v. 5, that " while He yet spake, behold a bright 
 cloud overshadowed Him, and behold a voice out of the cloud which said, this 
 is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; hear ye Him." It is evident 
 from this command of the Most High, that in all matters affecting the Church of 
 Jesus Christ, we are to hear Him, and to hear Him alone. We are to know nvs. 
 the good intentions of pious kings— we are to know not what may be decmt/^ ^^ 
 f hristian duty on the part of a nominally christian parliament, we ar« bcuxid 
 
10 hear Christ, to the exclusion of the most pions monarch on earth, or the moKl 
 religious parliament in the world. When the JUoly One say-s, " Hear ye Ilim," 
 surely the inference is, that all other authority in matters of religion is excluded. 
 We find In 2nd Timothy, 3rd c. 16th v., that "All Scripture is given by iqspi.a- 
 tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
 in righteousness." We. have here the same authority, reiterating its claims, and 
 this reiteraUon must exclude all interference with what snrinj^s from Heaven, 
 whether relating to matters within, or external to, the Ghurcn. In Revelations, c. 
 22, V. 18, it is written, "For I testify unto every man that hearcth the words of 
 the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add 
 unto him the plagues that are written in this book.'' it is evident then, that state 
 churches have not the authority nor .sancnon of the Word of God; and we are 
 Confined to God's Revelation, and are bound to yield obedience to it in all its 
 universality — in all its claims, extensive o" minute as the case may be. When 
 we take this Word of God, then, and deliver it up to a Privy Council, or to a 
 Parhamcnt, or to a pious Sovereign, we are abandoning our trust, and setting 
 aside the authority of God, and — it m-^v be with the purest intentions — trusting 
 to the wisdom of men. State churches imply thj exaction of taxes for their 
 erection. Whether in England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, or any other British 
 Colony, the exitience of a state church presuj'poses that the community are 
 bound to erect places of worship in connection therewith. But we learn from 
 Exodus, c. 35, vs. 4 and 5, that " Moses spake unto all the congregation of the 
 children of Israel, saying, this is the thing which the Lord commanded, saying, 
 take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord; whosoever is of a willing 
 heart let him bring it, an offering of the Lord ; gold and silver and brass." The 
 effects arising from this request on the part of God, for rearing His first house or 
 tabernacle, in this world, are set forth in the same book, c. 30, beginning at part 
 of 3rd verse: "And they brought yet unto him free offerings every morning. 
 And all the wise men, that wrought all the work of the .-ianctuaiy, came every 
 man from his work which Ihey made ; and they spake unto Moses, saying, the 
 people bring much more than enough for the serv^ice of the work which the Lord 
 commanded to make ; and Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be 
 proclaimed throughout the camp, saying. Let neither man nor woman make any 
 more work for the ofliering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from 
 bringing." It is plain that these strong and explicit passages of the Word of 
 God have ever been overlooked or set aside, in all the arrangements of state 
 churches, whether in reference to rectori':?s or to buildings of smaller pretensions. 
 It is not for me to echo the general and mournful tirade, that the people have not 
 the faith now which they had formerly. It will be found that when faith is small 
 in the church, it is still less among the ministers. When there is a faithful 
 ministry, there are always found to 'oe a faithful people; and when selfishness 
 and the corresponding passions in the human mind usurp the sway, and seek to 
 transfer the burdens of God's house from the shoulders of believers to the states 
 of the world, it is because the clergy themselves have become weak in the faith 
 — because they have turned their eyes to the world, instead of the cross of the 
 Saviour, We know that the church is supported in Canada from the Clergy 
 Reserves, the exact bearings of which will be pointed out by succeeding speakers. 
 It appears to me that those who lay claim to the historical verity of an apostolical 
 succession, certainly ought to be clothed with apostolical authority and shine 
 forth brightly as apostolic examples. We know that even tithes in the Old Tes- 
 tament Church depended not upon the hand, but upon the power of faith in the 
 soul. In Proverbs, c. 3, it is said, " Honor the Lord with thy substance, and with 
 the first fruits of all thine increase : so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and 
 thy presses shall burst out with new wine." And in Malachi, 3 c, " Will a man 
 rob God'? yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, wherein have we robbed theel 
 In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse : for, ye hhve robbed me, 
 eren this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the store house, that there 
 may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts 
 
10 
 
 !l; 
 
 Mi!! 
 
 1 fJi. 
 
 \t I Will not open you the windows of Heaven, and pour you out a blessing, thai 
 there shall not be r.om enough to receife it. And I will rebuke the devourer for 
 your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground ; neither shall 
 the vine cast her fruit before the ti*^e in, the field, saith the Lord of Hosts. 
 And all nations shall call you blessed: for yp shall be a delightsome land, 
 saith the Lord of Hosts." This shows the principle of free*will offerings on 
 which the servants of God depended, even under the Old Testament dispensation. 
 And in Luke, c. 10, we learn that the apostolic instructions were : " After these 
 things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before 
 His face, into every city and place whither He himself would come. Tnerefore, 
 said He unto them, the harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few : pray ye 
 therefore, the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth laborers into his 
 harvest. Go your ways ; behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves. Carry 
 neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes ; and salute no man by the way." Let me 
 then ask, who are iho successors of the apostles 1 Are they those men who go 
 forth in entire dependence upon the promise of the Most High, that all their 
 earthly wanjs will be supplied, and remembering the command that they are to 
 serve Him, and rely on Him, onlyl or are those to be regarded as the successors 
 of the apostles who keep the gospel quietly in their own souls until the govtrn- 
 ments of this world make arrangements for their temporal support 1 Undoubtedly 
 the statutes of Heaven are in contradiction to the statutes of this world ; and 
 truly Christ might say, looking over this assembly and the propositions before us, 
 •' When the Son of Man shall come, will he find faith on the earth 1" How did 
 the voluntary principle work in reference to those who were first sent forth to 
 preach the gospel. We have an answer in Luke, c. 22, v. 3^: " And He said 
 unto them, when I .sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, lacked ye any 
 thing 1 And they said, nothing." This declaration is most important, proving 
 as it does that— the voluntary principle is perfectly able to sustain itself where- 
 ever there are those who will receive the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ into 
 their souls. What is the gospel of Christ 1 It is pardon for our sins, and the 
 indwelling of the Holy Spirit to purify our hearts, and to sanctify our souls. 
 And think you that those that have received this gospel of love into their souls, 
 and the well-spring of water into their hearts, springing up into eternal life — I 
 ask, will those who have received this Divine principle nourish in their mind the 
 selfish principle, which says, " I will knock at the door of a human government, 
 and plead that Christ's ambassadors be fed, and clothed, and housed, out of the 
 general taxes of the landl" Such an one will rather say, "The Lord has 
 redeemed my soul, and washed it in the blood of the Lamb, and I will glorify 
 Him by giving of my substance to sustain his servants in their work, indepen- 
 dently of any human government." Such, it seems to me, is the result of^the 
 spirit of faith, wo. king by love, in the mind. Such is the great vital principle 
 of Scripture, which we are called upon this day to preach and proclaim, and to 
 exemplify in our own persons. I hope that the day of Gos;jel light is dawning 
 upon this portion of 'he world ; that the time when professed followers of Christ 
 trust for support lO the arm of flesh, and can stand and see the sword unsheathed 
 that His ambassadors may be fed and clothed, will pass away ; that men will 
 arise full of the Holy Ghost, with the Word of God in t^eir hands, and the sacred 
 principles of the gospel deeply seated in their hearts ; and that these will feel it 
 to be an honorable and a holy calling to go forth into the wilds of Canada to 
 preach the gospel of pardon and peace to guilty sinners, and t j stand strong in 
 the faith of the Lord Jesus Cnrist. A preacher of th"s class will say, " Brethren, 
 It is not your goods I seek, but the salvation of yonr immortal souls," He will 
 be an ambassador of Christ, perhaps clothed in ra.'js- -perhaps, dishonored by the 
 world,— it may be, having an obscure dwelling— but nevertheless having his 
 name written in the Lamb^s Book of Life. The apostles worshipped in an upper 
 chamber: they went forth hungering and thirsting after the Spirit of the Living 
 tiod; like their Divine Master, they oflen had no whelre to lay their heads; they 
 were taught to drink out of the cup of .His humiUation and suffering. Aud it i« 
 
11 
 
 only this gospel, fall of life anil power, in the souk of the ambassadors of Christ,- 
 that can over awe the wickedness of this world, and cheer, enlighten and elevate 
 the lost sheep of the House of Israel With the Bible in our hands, and this 
 gospel in our hearts, we can say to the king upon the throne, " We are under the 
 government of the Lord Jesus Christ ;" and can say to those that hold the na* 
 tional purse, " We have no claim upon it, and were you disposed to offer to us a 
 modicum of your revenue, we should abjure it, because Christ has promised that 
 He will be with us to the end ol the world." ■• , . 
 
 Rev. G. Bell — I was very happy indeed to hear the opening remarks of my 
 reverend friend who has just sat down, because of the great stress which he laid 
 upon the supremacy of Scripture in this matter. Proceeding to the subject which 
 is more immediately before us, I maintain the scripturalness of a state endow- 
 ment ot religion, on the great principle of the supr'^macy of Christ Jesuj over 
 the nations of the world, as well as over individuals. The Word of God 
 expressly declares in the book of Proverbs, c. 8, v. 15, " Bv me, kings reign and 
 princes decree justice ;" and it does appear to me that the inference to be drawn 
 from this is, that the people of a nation have a right to expect thatthey shall be 
 ruled in accordance with the Word of God. They have a right lo expect that 
 those principles which the Bible lays down, shall be acted upon by their rulers, 
 as well as that they shall act upon them in the obedience which they render to 
 those rulers. Notice another of the declarations of Scripture on this point in the 
 2nd Psalm, v. 10 : " Be wise now, therefore, O, ye kings ; be instructed ye judges 
 of the earth." This is a plain declaration that kings and rulers shall look to the 
 Word of God for instruction as to their duties. Then, again, in Jeremiah, c. 10, 
 our Lord is called by the title, " King of nations ;" in the 89th Psalm, v. 27, it is 
 said, " I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth," <ir 
 as it is often translated, '' Most High, above the kings of the earth ;" and in 
 Revelations he iscalled, " The Prince of the kings of the earth," and the "King 
 of kings, and Lord of .lords." All these passages shew most conclusively that 
 the rulers of this world are under the law of Christ, as much is the individual 
 christians of which the christian church consists. If an indiv' 'ual, then, has a 
 moral responsibility owing to his position in this world, so have communities, so 
 have the governments of nations as the organs of the communities over whom 
 they rule. That this is an evident truth, in accordance with Scripture, we learn 
 from the circumstance that moral characters are ascribed to nations and commu- 
 nities in Scripture. We read, for instance, of "a righteous nation," "an 
 ungodly nation," ani so on ; showing that there is a national and official respon- 
 sibility and moral character, and, as a necessary consequence to be deduced Irom 
 this, the possibility of national and official sin against Christ as the King ot 
 nations. The great duty of rulers, then, I presume all will admit, is, the glory 
 of God; but on this I do not now enter, as it will be discussed afterward. God 
 has expressly declared, " The kingdoms and nations that shall not serve me shall 
 perish." If we seek an illustration of this truth, we find it in the 5th prophecy ot 
 Daniel, vs, 22 and 23, where a message is sent to Belshazzar: " And thou his son, 
 O, Beltshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; but 
 hast lilted up thyself against the Lord of Heaven; and they have brought the 
 vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy con- 
 cubines have drunk wine in them ; ana thou hast praised the gods of silver and 
 gold, of brass, iron, wood and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know : and the 
 God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou noi 
 glorified." The manner in which the King of Heaven was not glorified by Bel » 
 shazzar was by his taking the vessels that belonged to the temple of God — the 
 church-— and applying them to secular purposes ; a lesson surelv, and an example 
 to modern rulers, who would lake the property of the church and apply it to 
 secular purposes — no matter what those secular purposes mav be. Further, it 
 is upon this principle alone, I conceive, that a missionary of the cross of Christ 
 has a right to go to a hostile shore, to preach the gospel. Were he not to go upon 
 
■m 
 
 12 
 
 
 I 
 
 0. 
 ill''- 
 
 n 
 
 I 
 i 
 
 ^his principle — Tverebe lorbidden'to enter a country, ''and threatened whh ptinisb- 
 raent if he preached the gospel there, — I cannot see Ihowhe could do otherwise, 
 consistently with his duty, than submit, unless he liad this higher authority and 
 felt on the authority of Scripture'that nations are bound to receive the gospel — 
 that they are bound as communities to submit themselves to the command of 
 Christ, and therefore that he is sustained by a higher law than the law of nations. 
 I look upon all the commands of God — the whole decalogue— as obligatory on 
 kings and governments of all kinds; and if so, then the first and second com- 
 mandments are obligatory upon them — thereby making it necessary that they 
 should make a public precession of religion, and — as a necessary consequence 
 blowing from this — that it is their duty to support the church of Christ. The 
 question is not if it be the duty of a state to establish and support a lalse religion , 
 but if it be the duty of a state to endow and support the true religion. It is not, 
 it it be the duty of the church to seek alliance with governments that are immo- 
 ral — with the world that lieth in wickedness ; but if it be the duty of the church 
 to seek alliance vith, and endowments from, a christian government — one that 
 recognizes in all things the ordinances of God, The question is, if it be the duty 
 of a state to afford positive favOr and support, or merely to give negative protec- 
 tion. It is not if the church can exist without state endowments, lor this we all 
 admit; but if it be the duty of the state — the non-performance ot which is the 
 commission of sin against Christ — to extend endowments and favor to the church. 
 And lastly, it is not if the state have authority in the church, for that we do not 
 admit; but if the state have authority to make arrangements with respect to the 
 outward support and comfort of the church. Having laid down these principles, 
 then, I say, the supremacy of Christ Jesus involves the duty of recognizing him 
 as the appointed head over all things ; and it becomes the duty of those who are 
 under his authority to support and sustain in every possible way the gospel of 
 Christ in the world. Surely, then, states have some means of serving the 
 interests of the gospel. The Word of God expressly declares that the civil ruler 
 is designed tobe a minister of good, and a terror to the evil. Surely, the gospel 
 is something that is good. Surely, offences against the gospel are something that 
 is evil. Our opponents must show, then, that the gospel is not good, before they 
 can show that governments have nothing to do with it-, and on the other hand 
 they must show that offences against the gospel are not evil, before they can 
 shew that the state has nothing to do with them. Upon two reasons, then, I 
 would ground my argument for the scripturalness of the civil establishment and 
 civil endowment of the church : first on the example, and second, on the predic- 
 tions, of Scripture. First, of the example. The Jewish Church existed in the 
 Jewish nation. There was there a union of church and state, although ihe 
 peculiar provinces of the church and state were separate and distinct. There 
 were separate tribunals and separate rulers over the civil aud over the ecclesias- 
 tical affairs of the church and nation. There was a legal countenance and 
 endowment given to religion, showing necessarily that it cannot be wrong to 
 give one or the other ihe legal countenance and endowment which were given 
 and continued with the expressed approval of G«d. The ceremonial observances 
 of the Jews have passed away, but the lessons which are to be derived irom 
 them, are still ours- and thus the apostle— although the christian ministry is 
 ■essentially different from the Levitical priesthood — argues for the necessity of 
 supporting the christian priesthood, from the nature of the support rendered to 
 the Levitical priesthood. The judgments which descended upon Israel were 
 different from the judgments that may come upon us, yet they are an example to 
 us. That which is moral — which existed as moral amongst the Jews — is still to 
 remain. If was in force before the Mosaic rites, and continues afterward. The 
 moral principle is not dependent on the mere concomitant circumstances of the 
 ceremonial law. It is the same in all the degrees of the church's development — 
 under the Mosaic dispensation, and under the complete development of Christ. 
 But, again, the Old Testament Church was not a mere ceremonial thing. Th« 
 established church of Israel was not merely ceremonial; and the conduct 
 
13 
 
 solemnly enjoined and pursued in building or repairing the House of God, was 
 conduct which commends itself to the heart of every man, as worthy of all time 
 and of every country. And when Jeho^aphat sent forth teachers throughout the 
 whole land tO' teach the Word of God, the result was that the blessing of Go<l 
 descended in a most emphatic manner upon the land. That was an example 
 that was not ceremonial — an example for state systems of education at the present 
 day, of which' religion should form an essential part, and without which, a system 
 of education would be a curse and not a blessing to a people. The system of 
 religion as established amongst the Jews was intende' to be a witness to the 
 world; and if the civil establishment of religion were an error, that very estab- 
 lishment was fitted in the fullest manner to perpetuate that error in the minus of 
 all the nations of the world; The state of Israel had, then, laws respecting 
 religion — laws which came from God, and which were therefore true ana right. 
 But there are other examples besides the Jewish, about which there can be no 
 question, in connection with ceremonial thing.*;. I would allude to the case of 
 Cyrus, who issued a proclamation declaring that the temple of God in Jerusalem 
 should be buijt; and further, to the example of Darius. In £zra, c. 6; we find a 
 proclamation for carr\ing out the former proclamation of Cyrus, and further 
 appropriatiiig the tribute of a certain portion of the empire for the purpose o f 
 carrying oijt this object of building the temple at Jerusalem. In Ezra, c. 7, we 
 find another proclamation of Artaxerxes in which he, in the first place, appoints 
 voluntary contributions tobe made to carry out this object, which was to receive 
 supplementary aid from the public treasury, — precisely in the way in which the 
 Clergy Reserves are appropriated now in this country. In the second place, I 
 rest my argument on the predictions which are given in the Word of Gou of the 
 support and endowment of the Church of Christ by civil governments. Thus, in 
 the 'i2nd Psalm, vs. 10 and H : "The Kings of Tarshish and of the Isles shall 
 bring presents: the Kings of Sb«»ba and Seba shalloffer gifts. Yea, allkings shall 
 fall down before Him ; all nations shall serve him." And in Isaiah, c. 49, v. 23 : 
 " And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers." 
 We frequently hear in the present day that the whole duty of civil governments 
 — aye, of a christian government — is to- leave the church alone. I ask, what 
 parent, having a proper sense of parental responsibilities, would consent to leave 
 the bringing up of his children to a nurse whose highest sense of duty was, that 
 she should leave the childTen alone T In Ezekiel, c: 45, v. 17, we read : " And it 
 shall be the Prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings and drink 
 offerings,, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in' all solem- 
 nities of the House of Israel : he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat 
 offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to ^lake reconciliation 
 lor the House of Israel." In Daniel, c. 7, v. 14, it is declared: " that all people, 
 nations and' languages should serve" Christ. I wish to notice the word people. 
 It may be said that this term is appHed only to people individually,- but when it 
 is followed by the word nations, it is evident that reference is made, not to the 
 people individnally, but to- the people in their corporate capacity ; so that while 
 the people individually are to serve Christ, the nation, as a nation, under thy 
 christian church, are also to serve him. In Revelations, c; 11, v 15, we read : 
 '■ There were great voices in Heaven, saying, the kingdoms of this world are , 
 become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ,, and he shall reign for ever 
 and ever." This speaks not of the people of this world, but of the kingdoms; 
 showing that the kingdoms, as such, are bound to become the kingdoms of Christ. 
 In Revelations, c. 2i, v. 27, it is said, that " the kings of tlie earth do bring, their 
 glory and honor unto it," that is, unto the christian church. Besides these passa- 
 ges, frequent mention is made of nations, and of the services which they anr 
 to render to the ehurch; but to these I cannot now more particularly refer. It 
 must be acknowledged by all then, that there was once a pecuniary provision 
 which could not be withheld from the church, without violating the law of God, 
 and subjecting the people so doing to civil coercion. If this be forbidden in the? 
 New Testament, show us the prohibition. Until the prohibition be shown, that 
 
ppp 
 
 14 
 
 liil'-:! 
 
 I \mhK 
 
 I 
 
 
 &K 
 
 1 ' 
 
 1 f^ 
 
 1 
 
 the same principle oaght now to regulate human governments which regulated 
 hnm^n governments then. A nation is bound to profess the religion of Christ, if 
 it be true that there is such a thing as a moral responsibility connected with that 
 nation or community. Does not every one admit that a necessary concomitant 
 t3 the profession of the truth of the gospel is, that pecuniary support is a duty 
 incumbent on the professor 1 If a nation then, profess the gospel of Christ, it is 
 bound to contribute to the pecuniary support and diffusion of the gospel. The 
 christian religion is fitted to d? all for a nation, in all its interests, social, political 
 and religious. In all its interests, religion does much— we mar say, does everjr- 
 thing — tor a nation. Surely, it is not inconsistent with Scripture that a nntioh 
 should do something to support and diftuse that which does all for it. If the 
 kings of the earth are the nursing fathers of the church, and the queens of the 
 earth its nursing mothers, I think that not mere toleration is implied, but autho- 
 ritative protection of the true religion. The idea that all creeds are alike, and 
 that all religions are alike, is an idea springing from hea'.hen sources, and is one 
 of modern invention. The equality of all belief, whether true or false, is not a 
 principle which ts to be found in the Word of God at all. It will be said that 
 the recipients of the benefit are those who are to contribute to the support of the 
 gospel. True, and it is because a nation as a nation receives benefits from Chris- 
 tianity, that the nation is bound to contribute to its pecuniary support. 
 . [Time expired.] ' 
 
 • Rev. T. WiNTERB0TH:4M— We are discussing the important question, whether 
 state endowments of the christian religion are scriptural or anti-scriptural. My 
 young brother who has last spoken, supports the scriptural foundation of state 
 churches. Lee us examine the arguments upon which he has based this plea. 
 The first is, the supremacy of Christ the Son of God, over all nations and king- 
 doms. Now I contend that the supremacy of Christ completely overturns all 
 state religions, because he is the King of kmgs, and the Lord of lords ; and the 
 responsibility of kings to Him is just the same as that of the beggar. The 
 kings of the earth who stand at the head of national churches, assume the 
 prerogatives of the Son of God, s nd are called heads of the church. Therefore, 
 if the supremacy of Christ is to be carried out to its full extent, state churches 
 and state endowments can have no existence. Our young brother's second 
 argument for state churches and state endowments, was drawn from the Jewish 
 church— the Jewish establishment — under the Old Testament. But let me 
 remind this audience that there is a perfect and an obvious difference between the 
 nation of the .Tews, and all nations that now exist beneath the sun. The nation 
 of the Jews was the church, and the church was the nation. This cannot be 
 asserted of any nation now. The nation of Israel was the church of God, and 
 God was the lawgiver ; but now, human kings and human parliaments are the 
 lawgivers. The church Of Israel had an endowment annexecf to it, but it was by 
 the authority of God. Now, national endowments are by the authority of men. 
 The tithes and the endowments under the Old Testament, were given to the tribe 
 of Levi, instead of the inheritance which they had given up. They received no 
 inheritance, and therefore ibey had the tithes in lieu of it. Who amongst the 
 bishops, and archdeacons, and rectors of the sfate-endowed church of the present 
 * day, has given up an inheritance, for the clergy reserves or for any other of the 
 privileges that they enjoy 1 I observe, again, that the endowments of the Jewish 
 church were not enforced by coercion. Our brother has asserted that they were, 
 but no instance can be brought to sustain his assertion. The obligation to pay 
 tithes and bring first fruits rested between God and the people alone. There was 
 no magistrate to persecute, — no constable to haul away to prison those who did 
 not pay,— no soldier to shoot down the widow that could not raise the necessary 
 tithe, as at Rathcormac. No coercion of this nature existed in the ancient church 
 of Israel ; and beside this, we say that the whole structure of the Jewish church 
 was completely dififerent from the existing structures of the world, because no 
 human wisdom or authority was then permitted to legislate at all. The only 
 authority was that of God. He spake and gave the laws. But now, human 
 
 ;...,yiivr 
 
15 
 
 parliaiaents smak and give the laws. God commanded the rituals and the pay* 
 raent oi the tithes. He alone exercised prero^tive over all— kings, andjudges, 
 and priests and people; and I want to know it this is so now. Look at Cfanada. 
 Does not our respected Governor General appoint the rectors 1 Does he not 
 exercise in church affairs a direct authority? This was not the case in Old 
 Testament times. God then commanded who should be piiests, and he prescribed 
 their duties; and therefore, onr brother's argument from Jewish customs falls 
 dead to the ground — particularly when we remember that all the Jewish customs 
 were wiped away when the Son ol God came to establish the gospel church. He 
 put aside the former dispensation and established the present. The Jewish 
 church and customs having accomplished their object, the New Testament 
 church has been established. Where, then, is the authority of state endowments^ 
 Where are the commands to establish national churches 1 Absent entirely. 
 We have no law to enact them — no rules to regulate them. Our young brother's 
 argument for state churches and state endowments was drawn, in the third place, 
 from the example of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes, and the building of the 
 temple at Jerusalem alter the Babylonish captivity. When I heard this argu- 
 ment, I thought that our young friend felt himselt in a dilemma when he found 
 it necessary to go into heathen countries lor an example for christian practices, 
 and christian order, and christian state chnrches: and I thought, moreover, that 
 the example was a little Wide of the mark. But the facts concerning Cyrus, and 
 Darius, and Artaxerxes are all the same. It was the decree of Cyrus that the 
 temple at Jerusalem should be built, and why 1 Because that wicked nation had 
 robbed the Jews; they had stolen the utensils of the temple — they had desolated 
 the country of Judea — and Divine Justice demanded that recompense should be 
 made to the injured Israelites by the rebuilding of their temple ; and this was 
 the sum of their whole proceeding. Let, then, those who plead for national 
 churches proceed upon the same principle. Let them go and pay back the spoils 
 of the church-rates in England. Let them pay back the spoils of the annuity- 
 tax in Edinburgh. Let them make recompense for the ruinous consequences of the 
 tithe system in Ireland. Having done this, they will be able to say that they had 
 imitated the example of Cyrus and Darius, and, further, that they have done a good 
 work. My arguments to prove that state endowments of religion are absolutely 
 anti-scriptural in every sense, are the following : Because state endowments are 
 at variance with the equitable discharge of the duties of civil magistrates in nations. 
 Every magistrate is to do justice to all, and the magistrate who takes from me and 
 gives to Brother Evans is not a just magistrate at all. Experience shows that state 
 endowments, followed out to all their legitimate consequences, interfere with the 
 proper execution of justice and equity in all the dealings of men, in regard to life, 
 liberty, and estate. AH these proceedings, or interference, by the magistrate, are 
 wicked ; and therefore 1 say that state endowments teach magistrates to sin, because 
 they take the goods of some people, to support the religion of other people. Thus, in 
 Canada, the clergy reserves are given to support the churches of England and 
 Scotland, while other religious bodies have no chance of being placed on an equality ; 
 and I say, therefore, that the magistrates are guilty of the sin of injustice, and that 
 this guilt is traceable to the influence of sta^e endowments. 
 
 The Chairman — I don't think that this is relevant. 1 hope that the speaker will 
 confine himself to argument on the question before us. 
 
 Rev. T. WiNTKRBOTHAM — I contoud that the ssriptures do not sanction injustice 
 by the magistrate in anything, and that endowments which teach magistrates to be 
 wicked, are anti-scriptural. If you can pronounce that irrelevant, Air. Chairman, 
 you may. In the second place, 1 argiie that state endowments of religion are not 
 scriptural because they place civil rulers in a false position. State endowments have 
 introduced a system into the British Empire which places rulers and parliaments in 
 (he place of God. I speak this with reverence. These powers pass acts of parliament 
 setting fprth what the church shall do — what the bishops shall do — what the rectors 
 shall do. The Church of Eagland must, then, obey the Parliament of England, 
 although that body is composed of wicked men — & great number of them, I am sorry 
 
 '■ I 
 
I^ 
 
 It; 
 
 tb njt btitig infidels, and* others libertinw. To these wicked men, meetbf iin 
 London, the Church of England is subject : she must obey all that the^ enact Sher 
 dare not disobey their ena<nments, now, I say, a system that leads to wickedness like 
 this, can never be jnatifisd by the Word of Qod. In the third' place, 1 maintain that 
 state churches are repugbant to God's word because they lead to Ttplenoe and perse* 
 Cttllon. Show me an endowed church in the laat 1500 years, that has not been a 
 peneoutiog church — from the Roman Catholic,- which itr the wont state endowed 
 church, to the church of Scotland, which is the best, show me a single endowed 
 church that has not been a persecuting church. So far as the Roman Cfatholiis are 
 concerned, alt know that their church has been a persecuting one from the hour of its 
 birth, and that it will be so until its death; [time expired.] it^j. 
 
 Rev. B. Crontn — It devolves upon me tb meet, as far as time will permit, (He 
 arguments which have been advanced by the two eentlemen on the other side. One 
 of those gentlemen pleaded from the scriptures of the old testament for the voluntary 
 principle, as that wiiich existed in the Jewish church. He quoted from Exodus, c. 
 35, where we read concerning the building of the tabernacle, to show that it was by 
 the voluntary contributiopd of the people that that work was executed. But"vhen wo 
 turn to the passage we find that this was by no means the case. The words are, 
 " This is the thing which the Lord commanded." The command' of God goes first. 
 Is obedience to that command the purely voluntary principle of which these gentlemen 
 now dpeak 7 It was God's command that we should keep the Sabbath. Are we 
 therefore to suppose that it is a voluntary act in us to keep the Sabbath? In the 
 same cbapier (Exodus 35) we find a command given by Moses that the Sabbath 
 should be liept as of God. The children of Israel were to keep the Sabbath, and 
 those who did not keep it were stoned to death. Jhat is not much lilie voluntaryism, 
 as explained to us by these gentlemen. In the same chapter, we have the command 
 of God that the children of Israel should bring of their substance to rear the temple. 
 Is that voluntairyism 7 We read that they did bring as they were commanded ; and 
 when enough was brought, they got the command to stop, and they all stopped. 
 They were voluntary in stopping as well as in bringing, but all was done under the 
 command of GodV who enforced it. If they had not obeyed it, would they have been 
 entirely harmless in the sight of God 7 Most assuredly not. As the sabbath- breaker 
 was stoned, so would have been those who did not bring of their substance to build 
 the tabernacle of the Lord. Again,- tithes were not a voluntary offering altogether ; 
 for if they were not brought in, pains and penalties were incurred, although one of the 
 gentlemen has said that there was no pain or penalty. The soul that did nothingf in 
 tithes was " cut off"' from Israel. How was this done 7 We find iu Exodus c. 31, 
 fhat if a' man< broke the sabbath he was taken and stoned by the people. This was his 
 punishment because he had trespassed the command of God. That soul, then, Wa» 
 *^eut off" from Israel. But all the argumentn of the first gentleman tell against all 
 enMfowments, of every shape and form. We are here to>day speaking of state 
 endtowments-, and, assuredly, [if he can prove that all endowments are wrong, state 
 endowments must fall with the rest. What he said concerning ministers of the 
 Gospel going forth, and not taking aid from the state, will tell equally against 
 n)4aifiteTe of the Gospel being supported from any source— 4y any endowments 
 «vh»tever. But how do people act ifn the present day 7 How do these volunlarieSr 
 S0 they style themselves, act in this matter T When they send the Gospel to heathen 
 lands, how are the individuals who proclaim that Gospel supported T By ihose to 
 whonff they minister 7 By the heathen, who have not yet received the Gospel at their 
 hands 7 Why, 1 was reading but yesterday an account oS Williams's Missionary 
 labours in the Pacific, and know that this is not the case. Gbrisc^ns in England 
 and elsewhere, by their contributions, raise nneans for endowing missions, and send 
 forth missionaries, and supply everything necessary for their support, while they 
 labour in the lands to which they are sent. Here, then, is the principle of endowment. 
 And if individual chrisiians in England may raise endowments for pious missionaries, 
 Why may not endowments be furnished in any other way by a Parliament or a Prince? 
 Assuredly, if endowments may be emploj'ed for the glory of God, and as the 
 iastrnmeut for making the Gospel of Christ known throughout theeartli, that is all 
 
 ' \ 
 
17 
 
 Ihat ean be eipeetad from them ; for endowmente can do nothins to bring home the 
 Gospel to the neeils of men : That ia the wurk of Ood'i Holy Spirit. He alone can 
 Older the uftruly wflls and affections of men, and conTort the sinner to the Sariear. 
 Endowments are externals — instruments — means ofconTersion, and of bringing the 
 Holy Word of God within the reach and hearing of individuals ; and if we are to ase 
 endowments of individaals, assuredly we may use endowments of societies and states. 
 The last geutleu..an spoke of a wicked parliament, sitting in London, and he said 
 that we are bound to obey that parliament. I hope so is he. I, at any rate, feel 
 bound to obey that pariiament, or rather the law of the land, proceeding from them. 
 But with regard to anything that pariiament can do to interfere with the spiritualities 
 of the chttrch, we spurn their interference altogether. They cannot interfere wit'-' ou r 
 
 Siritual fanctions. They cannot make a minister. They may take a minister 
 ready made, and may put him in a position where he can do the work of an 
 -evangeliitt-^where he can proclaim Christ to men — but they cannot make one. That 
 is the work of the church. We retain that in our own hands. No power on earth 
 ■can force our church to admit an improper man. They can take a man thus made 
 
 «^thas having the seal and sanction of the church — thus independent of them and 
 
 can place him in a particular position ; and while he w jrks there, in that particular 
 calling, the state may support him, even as individuals at home may support a 
 missionary in the Sandwich Islands. But, again, the gentleman who has just sat down 
 has said that the system of endowments is wicked, because it makes the^magistrate 
 take fronr. biin sooitfthing, and give that something to some one else. This kind of 
 statement may do very well in popular assemblies, where, just at this moment, a 
 thing is spoken to produce effect, and draw forth a cheer, but it will not do with 
 reasoning men, when they go home and reflect. TheMl see that it is a falsehood of 
 the grossest kind. No such thing as this-is don?. Drawing arguments as he does 
 from taxation at homi in Ireland, and thtoughoat the continent, he fails altogether 
 when he comes to apply them here, because they are wide of the mark. We speak 
 not of taxation, of taking from hkn and giving to another; but we speak of that 
 which has been given, of mat which has already faien bestowed, which has been righiiy 
 and justly, and legally bestowed, for the maintenance of religion in this country ; a 
 portion of which is taken by the state, and given to one denomination — and the 
 remainder of which is-offered to all other denominations. He says, other denomima* 
 tions do not get any. . It is offered to them, however. All know that there is a 
 certain portion of the 'proceeds of the sales of the clergy reserves remaining in the 
 hands of government, of which all Protestant denominations in the country are invited 
 
 to partake. I may be wrong,, but I think this is the case, and therefore it is not fair 
 
 it is what is vulgarly called clap-trap — to say that what is taken from him ia given lo 
 Brother Evans. That is not done. Ne injustice of the kind is perpetrated. Half of 
 the clergy reserves remain in the hands of govemment, and that gentleman may come 
 and take a share if he likes. He says his uonscieuce will not let him take any. Hif^ 
 conscience, then, is to be the measure of my conscience ; and if 1 conscientiously 
 boiieve that endowments ought to be furnished by the state for the maintenarjce of 
 religion, he comes, and with that liberty of conscience which he appears only lo 
 kuowby name, he says, "Ah, but your conscience shall have nothing to do with 
 the matter*- mine shall govern." Such is the principle on which that gentle ,eri 
 would act [ am as fully persuaded in my conscience that endowments — whetht-r 
 fi'om individuals or christian goveruments^-for the maintenance of religious instructioo, 
 are good and right, .and lawful, as endowments for the maintenance of education~ 
 nay, more so. If I am thus persuaded, ought I not as a British subject, to av&il 
 myselfof an endowment that is already provided ? Ought I not to do this as belonjgiDg 
 tu a body who wish to see endowments employed in carrying the guspel throughuuT 
 the land. And, shall the ciuscientious convictions (for of course, convictions are 
 conscientious) ol any section of the communi;y, b* brought in as a measure of niv 
 feelings or of my actions on the subject? i think that irue liberty of coni<cJenc''e 
 ahould be allowed to each and to all ia the couniiy ; and as christian' men, may we 
 uot employ the endowments that may have been pro vidid,i.nd which aie ns righteou.s 
 «B eudowiueiits springing from individuals — as righteous as \kf endowments collected 
 
 
l! 
 
 r. 
 
 t 
 
 ! V 
 
 til 
 
 i 
 
 i • 1 
 
 
 19 
 
 by the London Miinioatry Societ*. and which, to their honoor be it ipokrn— thev 
 have lo nobly employed Id the diMeihinetion of the Gospel throughout the South 
 Sea lelaodi, and varioua other parte of the earth 7 Thia geotleman haa also eaid that 
 tUe Levitee gave up an inheritance, but that no liahope or rectore have given up an 
 inhuri'ance for what they now get. lie must know that in thia country every man's 
 time ia his money. The inheritance which God has bestowed on me are my talents 
 — whatever thev may be— and the education which brought these talents into the 
 market. If he liad brought his great forensic talents into the market, might he not 
 itave obtained a competency through means of them 7 Or might he not, by some 
 honest calling, earn sufficient to maintain andsuppoiihim, by means of these talents? 
 PJut he gave (hem all up — 1 dare say exclusively — to the preaching of (he Gospel, all 
 these powers he employs for the good of the church and the benefit of mankind — and 
 ought he not to rt-ceive something for his labour 7 He saj's the Levites gave up an 
 inheritance in the land. Well, in the present state of this country — where tliere are no 
 f:reat inheritances amongst us — are not every man's time and talents hisinheri(ance7 
 If we surrender these, and devote ourselves exclusively to the ministry of the Govpe!, 
 asFureily the gentleman will not say we ought to labour with our own hands, at some 
 trade or calling, m omer that we may support ourselves 7 Perhaps he does this— I 
 don't know. Perhaps he receives nothing. Perhaps he does not get enough to 
 support him while he preaches the Gospel. We know he has a high scriptural ex* 
 fjiiple. The Apostle Paul, though he claimed the right of living oy the Gospel— 
 though he based this on law and example — though he said, they that preach the 
 Gospel should live by it even as they that practice any other calling ; yet still, he 
 wrought with his hands, that he might not be chargeble upon the churches, whiUi 
 he proclaimed the Gospel amongst them. Thus, though he ase<erted his right to a 
 maintenance while he preached the Gospel, he did not use it. [Time expireii.] 
 
 Rov. A. Duncan — Some remarks which dropped from my excellent friend, Mr. 
 Bell, are, 1 think, entitled to my notice, and I hope I heard him correctly enough to 
 be enabled to take down his words, or the purport of them. One Is, that the state 
 has no right to endow a false religion. He does not recognize in any state in the 
 world a right to endow a false religion. Of course, then, the state mcst have the 
 capacity, the discernment, and the power to establish the true religion. Presuming, 
 then, that the state to which we belong is the best in the world — and in my opinion it 
 ia, for 1 think there is no presumption in believing that the British nation have more 
 virtue, more intelligence, and more uprightness, than any other in the world — I am 
 yet unable to recognize in (he British government either the spiritual discernment 
 to know the true religion from the false, or the capacity to establish (he tiuth as it is 
 in Jesus, to the exclusion of that which is opposed to the religion ot Christ. And as 
 I do not recognize either in the Biiiish government, will he tell us to what other 
 country we are to look 7 It would not Le to infidel France — it would not be to 
 tuperstitious and lethargic Austria — it would not be to any country that I know (f 
 on the Continent of Europe. Again, he said, in another portion of his address, that 
 to recognize the equality of religious creeds is infidel. Now dues he mean to charge 
 his own government with being an infidel government 7 It is a notorious fact that 
 they recognize Catholicism iu Lower Canada, and give it full and complete sancdou 
 as a civil establishment. It is as notorious that they recognize the Episcopal Church 
 of England, and give to it exclusive powers as an establishment, south of the Tweed. 
 It is equally true that they recognize the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and give 
 to it the exclusive powers of an establishment, north of the Tweed. Are we, tneo, 
 to understoud that these chuichos are all equally divine in their origin, equally 
 apostolic in the administration of their authority, and equally sound in the great 
 lundamental doctrines of Jesus Christ 7 Yet, as I have eaid, we find the British 
 government standing on the same jdatform with Catholicism, vith Church of 
 Englandism, and with Presbyterian ism, in different parts of the Empire; and here 
 we find the same government willing to bestow the clergy reserves on Baptists, 
 Methodists, and on Free Churchmen, as well as on the Church of England, and the 
 Establiiihed Church of Scotland — inshurtv ready to sanction every religious deuouii- 
 
great 
 
 19 
 
 nation in Western Canada. They are willing to maintain denomination! with or 
 ; without a creed. Let me aak, is this an\ thing like the reeognition of the truth a« 
 it is in Jeans Christ, on the part of the British governmeot 7 We are told that if we 
 desire a portion of the reierves, it hu been reserved for us, and can be had on 
 application. I repeat, then, my enquiry—where is the recognition of the principle 
 for which Mr. Bell contends, namrly, that a nation has no right to establish the false 
 religion, but that it has the capacity to discover, and the authority to declare, which 
 is the true cbnrch 7 We find, then, that this darling principle — this principle which 
 is so dear to his own nature, and apparently so wrspped up in his christian aflfections 
 •—is repudiated, in practice at least, if not in theory, by the British government. Jt 
 is not for me to accuse the government. It is not for me to impute to men wrong or 
 bad motives in any sense ; but I am at libertv to deplore their church policr, and I 
 pray daily that they may be restricted to their proper duties — namely, to defend the 
 country against foreign aggression, and to maintain equity and peace witbia her 
 borders; allowing the ark of God to be superintended and presided over by Christ, 
 who is King in Mount Zion. He, who is our great Hiirh Priest, declared that His 
 Kingdom is not of this world— that it is a spiritual kingoom, planted in the hearts of 
 believers, and nurtured and watered by the holy spirit— and that f his divine principle, 
 planted by God in the souls of men who were once sinners but are now saints, is 
 powerful enough to lead them to do all that is required to sustain His cause. ]^ 1st 
 Corinthians, e. 9, it is written, *' Who planteth avineyard, and eateth not of the fruit 
 thereof 7 or who feedeth the flock, and eatelh not of the milk of the flock 7 Say I 
 these things as a man, or saith not the law the same aho 7 For it is written in tho 
 law of Moses, thou shah not muzzle thre mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. 
 Doth God take care of oxen. Orsaith he italtogether foronr sakes 7 For oursakes, 
 no doubt, tliis is written : That he that ploweth should plow in hope : and he that 
 thrasheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual 
 things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things 7 If others oje partakers 
 of this power over you, are not we rather ! Nevertheless, we have not used this 
 power ; but suffer all things lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ." I apprehend 
 this is one of the passagrs to which Mr. Cronyn referred. He referred also to Exodus, 
 c. 35. Did not God there command the voluntary principle 7 Did God there command 
 expulsion 7 Ifl do not err greatly, God there gives a distinct acommand to Moses, 
 that he should cause to be proclaimed throughout the camp that "whosoever was of 
 a willing heart" should bring an offering to the Lord — that God was ready to receive 
 these free will ofFerings, or, in other words, God was willing to recognize and receive 
 the fruits arising from the voluntary principle. And the people, in reply to the 
 command, brought more than enough, not onlvofrude materials to construct a house, 
 but also of gold, and silver, and ether valuable articles. I think, then, we may 
 safely affirm that the Word of God establishes and commands the voluntary 
 principle, and that compulsion is rti no case enjoined to advance tho service of God. 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. G. Bell— We have just heard a great deal about the voluntary principle. 
 In a certain point of view, I am jnst as ready to acknowledge the voluntary 
 principle as the rev. gentleman who has just sat down ; but, at the same time, 'I 
 say that that which is voluntary is not always necessarily optional. It may be 
 voluntary : I trust that the obedience which the true believer renders to the law 
 of God is always voluntary; but it is not optional whether he render that obedi- 
 ence or not. This, I think, is a most important distinction, which should not be 
 lost sight of; anl while we maintain the propriety of a legal provision for the 
 support of the christian church, in a pecuniary point of view, at the same time, 
 that legal support may not necessarily be compulsory. Those, to whom allusion 
 has been made, the Jews, who contributed to the building of the tabernacle in the 
 wilderness — gave free-will offerings^ and I trust that a fr*'e-will offering was also 
 given, when the British GovernrAent set apart the Reserves in this Province. 
 We i.iaim no compulsion. So far as voluntary contributions are concerned, we 
 iclaim Qo right of compulsioo in a government. A government may do right or 
 
1* 
 
 ■, I 
 
 / ; 
 
 1 
 
 80 
 
 "tflti'r 
 
 t:r .i*M 
 
 it mav do wrong. We assert that tke prinolnle of the endbwment of rellfion ft 
 •criptural, A KoTemment may not acknowledge this principle, but its script** 
 ralness cannot be aflected by that circnnbtance. The gifts of ttie state msst of 
 course be voluntary, or tbey would not be gixren at all. I would reply briefly to 
 what was said about tlie position of the state in endowing the true religion. I 
 understood Mr. Duncan to sav, that I had stated that an eqjuallty amongst creeds 
 was an infidel principle. I tnink I did not state this. So far as 1 recollect, the 
 words I used were, that this principle of the equality of creeds, and the equal 
 goodness of all religions, sprang trom a heathen source, or was of modern inren- 
 lion, because it is no. oundin the Bible. I still maintain that a state has to do 
 with the true religion, in comparison with that which is false ; and I maintain, 
 further, that civil governors, members of parliament, or kines, have every means 
 of knowing what the true religion is— just as private individuals have these 
 means. Civil governors are as deeply interested in discovering which is the true 
 religion as other persons, and their legislation in reference to it can be opun to no 
 further objections, than are urged against legislation on any other topic or concern 
 ot life. It is not left to opinion. The Word of God is given to tell what the true 
 religion is, and to this, rulers as well as other individuals have access. It is ob< 
 jected to the application of this principle, that the christian church is divided into 
 a great number of sects, but I ask, wnat has caused this division T It was roC 
 the Bible. It is not state endowments. It is the sinfulness of man which still 
 remains in the heart, even when that heart is under the influence of the Spirit of 
 God. It is the remaining sinfulness of the human heart which causes divisions 
 in the Church of Christ; and I maintain that it is entirely apart from the argu- 
 ment to take that which exists owing to man's own wickedness, and assign it as 
 a reason why the government of a country should not do the duty which the 
 supremacy of Christ requires that government to do. Ileferences have beea 
 made to government endowing Popery in Lower Canada. It is well known to- 
 the persons who make that reference, and to all present, that we do not approve 
 of the government endowing popery, and we hope— and earnestly hope — that the 
 time may soon come when a change in this respect shall take place. What ii' 
 the government of 'this or any other country may not be doing their duty— may 
 be acting inconsistently with their duty ? This does not impair the validity of 
 the principle by which they are bound to act; and it is the duty of the christian 
 church to labor and pray that the state, and all in authority, maybe brought to a 
 sense of duty, and led to act in accordance with it. A general endowment of all 
 that is right and all that is wrong, is a principle which I do not recognize, 
 whether it be acted on by the present Canadian Government or not. I do not 
 believe that that is the principle on which they act. But if it be, it merely le- 
 moves the difficulty one step further back : instead of overthrowing our argument 
 it simply shows that that government are not doing their duty. It does not alter 
 the nature of their duty. I maintain from the positive declarations of Scripture 
 which I before addnced, that it is incumbent on the government to endow, and 
 countenance, and support the Church of Christ in the land. I speak not of sect», 
 but of the Church of Christ, it may be said that the christian church existed at 
 the earliest period without state endowments. This may be true ; but it does not 
 necessarily follow that it ought always to exist so. If this be a sound argument 
 in favor of the voluntary principle, ii is an equally sound argument to say, that 
 the church should always exist in a state of persecution. It existed then in a 
 state of persecution as well as purity; and if it be argued that it should exist 
 without legal support and countenance, because it so existed in Apostolic times, 
 it may with equal force be argued, that we should seek persecution in order to 
 put the church in its true position. With respect to what was said about Cyrus 
 and other kings of Persia, I did not go to them for the purpose of learning what 
 should be the dut^ of a christian ruler, but I Went to them to show, that while we 
 maintain as a principle that a government is bound to be christian, and, being 
 christian, is bound to act up t') the precepts of the gospel in supporting the gospel 
 we at the same time contend that if the government is not conducted strictly ia 
 
21 
 
 adoptine as my authority an individuol who enjoys 
 
 mean Vattel, author of the "Law of Nations," whi 
 
 moral person who possesses an understanding and will peculiar to 
 
 susceptible of obligations and lights." " A nation, while she acts 
 
 Accordance with these principles, the church has a perfect right to receive pecu« 
 ntary support from that government. -Cyrus ^nH 'Barius were not chrUtian 
 niUrs. They were not rulers in accordnnce with the revealed will of God, as it 
 was then; but when they were willing todevoie theM tributes out o( the revenues 
 of the empire, to the support of the true religion, the church of God accepted it. 
 And in likemanrter, I maintain, thnl it is the right and duty of government to 
 Act on christian priticiplcs; but supposing the government does not Hct strictly in 
 accordance with' these principles, tnere is notbmg wrong in the Church of God 
 accepting pecuniary support Irom that government. 
 
 Rev. W. Bettridoe— I'risd to introduce and support the second proposition, 
 which is as follows : 
 
 3— Ttiat the Stole beiiiff a divinely appointed instrument for the promotion of the glory ef 
 Oo«l and the welmre of mankind, la bound to ucl( now ledge, protect, and 8up{)ort ttt« 
 Church, but that in the dincharge of this duty the rights of runscirnce are tu be hvld 
 < sacred. 
 
 On entiiring upon the consideration of a topic like this, our primary care 
 5hou4d be tc define the terms that are used in the discussion. Before going any 
 farther, therefore, I will take the liberty very briefly to define the term "state," 
 
 an European reputation — I 
 who defines a state to be "A 
 herself, and in 
 in Cwinradn or 
 in a body, is a moral person, who is not less obliged than any individual to obey 
 the laws oi nature (and its author.)" " That moral person resides in those, who 
 are invested with the public authority, and represent the entire nation." " Whether 
 this be the Common Council of the nation, an aristocratic body or a monarch, 
 this cooduf'tor, lepresentative, or monarch, is indispensably obliged to obey. "A 
 nation ought to he pious. The superiors entrusted with the public afiairs should 
 eonstanlly endeavor 'to deserve the approbation of their Divine Sovereign, and 
 whatever <hey do in the name of the state, ought to be regulated by this grand 
 aam." "If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national 
 capacity, is doubtless obliged to serve aud honor Him." It will be admitted that 
 these are the principles^ of natural religion. They are the principles by which 
 men regulate their conduct, and they evidently show tb us that a i.ation derives 
 its existence originally from- -God— ^that a natfon is bound to consult the honor 
 and glory of -God— 'that a nation is responsible to<j!odfor its actions— thai a 
 Dation is as responsible for its collective acts, as an individual is for his individual 
 acta. ^It will be allowed, further, that »f a state is bound to serve and to hoi»or 
 <3od — to recognize His authority — it must be the same whether that authority 
 be suggested by the law of nature, or whether it be by the revealed law. I mean 
 by this, that a state is bound to acknowledge and obey the Revelation of Jeho- 
 vah, in which a state will find principles laid down for its guidance. I here 
 feel that I am entering ground wnich my friend Mr. Bell has just traversed, but 
 the subjects are so closely related that I find I cannot sustain my argument 
 without in some measure going back to the very position which he has occupied, 
 A state recognizing the Revelation of God, will there find a distinct statement 
 of some of its dutie«s and of the duties of its subjects. To a few of them I will 
 refer. It is distinctly declared by the Apostle, that " The powers that be are or- 
 dained of God," and, moreover, that the state is "A minister oTGod for good" 
 to tJM subjects of that state— also, that it is " a minister of vengeance, to execute 
 vrath on those that commit evil." We find, moreover, that all power belongeth 
 to God; and if ail power belongeth to Him, it is a talent entrusted to the possessor 
 of that power; and the possessor of any talent, any blessing, which God in his 
 providence or grace bestows, must be employed to the honor of God. God 
 declares that the silver and gold are His, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. 
 In a word, all things are Jehovah's. AH things, then, are to be made to subserve 
 the honor and glory of God— whether possessed by a state or an individual. 
 Whatever maybe the possessions, power, or ioflaence, that power, that influence, 
 
 ! 
 

 22 
 
 .t. 
 
 ■i» 
 
 I 
 
 those possessiona, aro derivable immediately from God. The state owes these 
 talenlH and powers immediat<ily to Ood. and I think the conclusion very obvious 
 and ceriuiD, that they must be employed to subserve the honor and glory of Qod. 
 I argue not rhe Divine appointment of a state, because I thinlr, our friends oppo- 
 Mite do net di-ny it. I pass on to the end for which the state is appointed, and 
 that, we ara (< id. in the proposition, is the welfare of man. That is one of the 
 designs for whicn the state is a minister of Ood for good to the subjects of Ood 
 —that is, in the terms of the proposition, for " the welfare of mankind." There 
 can be no doubt of this. But the question now recurs, what are we to understand 
 by (he term welfare 1 I shall only ask our friends on the other side, whether it 
 would be nossible for them to fmd any declaration in Scripture that would exclu- 
 sively connne the talents, the power, the possessions of the state, to the furtherance 
 of the temporal good of its subjects 1 Because on this, tho whole hangn, We 
 must, then, appeal to the law and to the testimony — to the law of Revelation, in 
 whicn the Lord distinctly declares to us what is the duty of a state. That law 
 reveals to us that there is one thing especially needful for the welfare of man, 
 and that is, the knowledge of that truth and revelation of which we are now 
 speaking. I sny, then, with Mr. Bell, that the state is bound to know what id 
 good, if a state is the minister of Ood for good, and the executor of wrath — of 
 vengeance — on those that are evil, it necessarily lollows that the state must know 
 what is good and what is evil ; otherwise, how can it reward the good and punish 
 the evill Tho question then, legitimately arises, are we to tak|^ the varying 
 standard of the world as to what is good or evil 1 I think that our friends oppo- 
 site would not like to do that. They will agree with us that there is only one 
 i^iandard, and that is, Ood's Word: to that we must make an ultimate appeal. 
 I do submit, then, that the state is bound to know that Revelation — that the state 
 is bound to consult that Revelation, in order that it may know how to reward the 
 good and punish the evil. Here, then, we see, that a state must immediately 
 conform to the will of Ood, which is the ultimate law of its actions. There are 
 three methods bv which the welfare of man may be promoted and maintained : 
 these are., J^rst, by military force, secondly, by penal laws, thirdly, by the influ- 
 ence of religion. Now our iriends on the opposite side are perfectly willing that 
 we should employ miliiai^ force, to keep the subjects of a state in obedience to 
 i's laws: they (k> not deny t^at some force of this kind is necessary in dealing 
 with those who rebel against the laws of the land. They are perfectly willing, 
 also, to see this Court-house employed in enforcing laws— -to see a gentleman 
 Hitting on the bench in the capacity of a judge, to execute vengeance against 
 those who violate the laws of the land. They are willing to ^o thus far. But 
 when we come and tell them that we conceive that there is another thing where- 
 by the state may be enabled to regulate its affairs, and keep its subjects under its 
 control and authority, in perfect obedience, not only to its own laws, but to those 
 which'are superior— namely, the laws of God — these gentlemen demur, and are 
 not willing that the state should occupy this position. It seems to me that this is 
 an extraordinary view which our iriends take of the means that may be em- 
 ployed for the well governing of a state— that it may employ means of coercion, 
 and penal enactments, but that the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ may not be 
 employed by it. I am not going to put the dispensations of religion in the hands 
 of a state, but I say that there is a method by which religion may be employed 
 to advance the welfare of a sti-te. The Revelation of God points out that method 
 —it points out to the state. His own church— the church which he has appointed, 
 and the uses of which are also distinctly shown in that Revelation. I say, then, 
 that it seems to me that the state ought to be enabled to employ the means or- 
 dained by Qod, co-ordinate with its own authcurity, for the great end — the welfare 
 of mankind. Under these views, we hold that the state is bound to acknowledge, 
 protect, and support the church. I hold that the state is bound to acknowledge 
 the church— that is, to acknowledge its Divine mission, which I repeat is co-or- 
 dinate and co-extensive with that of the state— namely, the welfare of mankind. 
 The Divine mission of the church ought to be acknowledged by the state : that is 
 
23 
 
 to deolare tha will and purposes orOod--to declare the condition of men ruirn 
 as well as subjects. The Apostle Paul, in that part of his Epistle to the 
 Romans to whieh I have referred, where he says, '*The powers that be are 
 ordained by God," does most distinctly p>int out ti e duty of the stale, at the 
 .same time |that he points out the duty of subjects. In this way, the Divine 
 mission of the church is to declare the will of Ood to all, whether rulers or 
 subjects. In obedience to the directions given in God's holy Word, we as min- 
 isters uf the gospel, nre bound, ns far as in us lies, tocoiivitico men that they 
 are sinners — rebels ngainst Divine law and authority. Wo are to do this 
 r>ocording to the mission given by Christ to his apostle.**. We are to go into all 
 the world and preach the gospel to every creature. This Divine mission thy 
 state is bound to acknowledge. But again, I say, the state is boimd to acknow- 
 ledge the independence of the church. It has been insinuated here, that the 
 Parliament of Great Britain has power to dictate to the church of England. I 
 can allow nu dictatorship. The Parliament cannot dictate in things spiritual. 
 We claim to be as high and independent as any gentleman at this table. I defy 
 the Governor General to come into my church to control it, or to say one word as 
 to the doctrine I proJess. Here is the doctrine I preach— the Word of God. 
 Parliament can in no way interfere with this. The independence of the churc.i 
 regarded in the matter of ordination. The powers of the " keys" may be exer- 
 cised without infringing on the powers ol the state; so the power of the state 
 may be exercised without impairing the independence of the cnurch. The state 
 is bound to acknowledge the independence of the church in all matters of theo- 
 logy. Our articles tell vou what we declare to be our doctrine, and with this, we 
 allow no authority of the state to interfere. The state has nothing to do fur 
 instance, with ordination. The state cannot make or break a minister. It may 
 employ a minister — put him into a vicarage, or rectory ; but it is for the Bishop 
 to judge of the qualifications of ministers. Some authority —whether called 
 Bishop or Synod is immaterial must— decide as to the qualifications of indivi- 
 duals to bear the ministerial office. I have said that the state is bound to 
 acknowledge the Divine mission and independence of the church; but I go 
 further and say, that the state is bound to protect the church. Not, however, by 
 allowing the church to assume temporal power. We know that for many centu- 
 ries one churcn has assumed the sceptre of temporal pOwer; but we claim nons 
 of this. We conceive that the state has not in an^ one instance to resign its 
 temporal power into the hands of the church; but I say that the state is bound to 
 protect the church in the discharge of its duty. The very mission of the church 
 clearly involves thisduty on tha part of the state. Why, the ministers of Jehovah 
 are commanded to go forth into the world to tell men thatthey are rebels against the 
 authority of God — against all constituted authority, (for we k-.ow sufficient of the 
 human heart to be aware that it is enmityagainst the mind and heart of God.) The 
 time has been when men considered that they were doing good service by destroy- 
 ing the faithful servants of Jehovah, who have a right to look for protection to 
 the state. We ask this protection, in order that we may be free to do our duty, 
 in declaring from pole to pole, the unsearchable riches of the gospel of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. We seek not unreasonable power, but merely that which shall 
 enable us to discharge our duty. I go furtner, according to my text, and say, 
 that the state is bound to support the church. By support I mean, of a pecuniary 
 kind. The very fact of the church having to go forth to discharge this duty 
 would necessarily involve the J uty on the part of the state to support it — not 
 only for the church's sake, but also for the sake of the sgite itself. Our friends 
 on the opposite side, lay rather undue stress on the support given by the state to 
 the churcn, as thoagit it necessarily involved the thraldom of the church. These 
 gentlemen appear to suppose that the state says in effect, to a minister, " There 
 is a sphere or labor before you— a location large enough ; we'll give you the 
 meaos of laboring there, but you must preach such and such a doctrine." We 
 aay, on the contrary, " we preach the pure gospel, and it is not for the state to 
 iotarfere with our doctrine ; we have an authority higher than yout's— co-ordinate 
 
.^•^ 
 
 
 
 
 '■M 
 
 \ f 
 
 with vour owo ; sappij us with means— we wan', no more— and we will jfo forih 
 and ffo our duty as preachers of the gospel." Support may, then, be rendered 
 uiid received without trenching at all on tne independence of the church. I can 
 not see that the independence of the church would be at a.V ' -^rilled bj such 
 a course. I do not see how the independence of any minister can be perilled, 
 merely because he receives XlOO a year from the state. I think a set of more 
 iniiepondant-minded men do not exist in the world than the clergy ot the Charcb 
 uf tlngland. 
 [Time expired] 
 
 Rev. W. Landon — The thesis I am to support is this : 
 
 " Tliat goT-ernments are the result of human necessities, and not the igtnt or instrnmon 
 dcs^ned of God, for the direct or inuuv.' cantiol of religious faith and opinion, whict^ 
 are to be based on i ^. Word of God only." 
 
 This thesis contains three distinct propositions : 1. Governments are the result 
 of human necessities. 3. Governments are not the agents or instruments designed 
 by God for the control of religious faith and opinion. 3. Religious faith and 
 opinion are to be based on the word of God only. 
 
 Rev. W. Bettridoe— This is not the plan we adopted. The other side took 
 their own proposition, and we followed h through. We have now put forward 
 our proposition, and the other side are going to discuss something quite different. 
 
 Rev. J. WiNTERBOTBAM — Thisas an evident attempt at dictation. 
 
 Rev. P. Evans— Certainly v.'e have no desire to dictate. 
 
 Rev. J. GuNDRY — I put it to our friends, whether we are not at liberty to select 
 our own proposition. 
 
 Rev. F. Evans — Of course by doing so, you leave Mr. Bettridge's arguments, 
 untouched. 
 
 Rev. W. Landon — I think not, I think I shall be able to notice them. 
 
 Rev. P. Evans— Well, go on then. We shall be satisfied. 
 
 Zlev. W. Landon— I shall not occupy much of your time upon the^rst of the 
 propositions which I have laid before you, for I do not expect it will be seriously 
 disputed, ft may indeed be objected, that Governments are the ordinance of 
 God, which will be readil}, admitted, though not as an objection^ as the two 
 propositions are perfsctly consistent with each other. Many other institutions, 
 might be mentioned, which are the result of human necessities, and at the same 
 lime ordinances of God, as marriage, parental cave and instruction, the rights of 
 property, and others. 
 
 But lest this admission should be strained beyond its proper limits, I shall just 
 remind you, that Pagan and Mahometan Governments are ordained of God, not 
 less than Christian governments, and consec^uently. no argumen. can be raised 
 upon the fact of such or^ainment in favor ot christian rulers as such, interfering 
 in behalf of the christian religion, which would not at the same time, and to the 
 same extent, go to authorize anti-christian rulers to persecute and proscribe that 
 religion, if they should find it existing in their dominions. The truth is^ the 
 Divine ordinance has respect to the human necessity, and is co-extensive with it. 
 The extent of the one limits and defines the powers and operations of the other. 
 Now, as members of the state, men in inspect to their fellow-men, need notbiug 
 but protection. This single word expresses the human necessity in its falsest 
 extent. And hence it follows that the powers that be are ordained of Gh)d, and 
 invested with the swor(rto be a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do 
 •rell. Here their functions are exactly lin;ited. Tlicy are to repress violence, 
 to prevent fraud and injustice, and to afford the most perfect safety to every good 
 citizen, (t. e. to every citizen who does not invade the right of others,^ and to all 
 his lawful interests. If they attempt anything beyond this, they exceed the 
 authority given them in the Divine ordinance "% much as they surpass the limits 
 of the necessity to suppiy|which the ordinance was provided. In respect to meOj 
 
all such acts are superilaoua— perhaps tyrannical ; but in respect to God's ordf> 
 name, theyvre usurpation and unaathoriser' intrusion; and in traih respects null 
 and void, having none of the sanctions of righteous and constitutional- laws. 
 " The law is not made," says the Apmtle, for a righteous man, btttfor the lawless 
 i\nd disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for 
 murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, lor manslayers,'^ and suoh li^e. 
 But I proceed to the second proposition, which xoh tain s the xjuestion of the 
 chiefest importance of a^y with which 1 have at present to do. ^Governments 
 are not the instruments or agents designed of God for the-contrdt -of reKgious 
 taith and opinion. This proposition is negative in its quality, tmd 'it^ is some- 
 times said that negatives admit of no proof. But in the present case- it seetns to 
 me nothing is easier. I might observe, in the first place, tb^t nofhing flke the 
 authority jhere supposed, is conferred upon civil governments, or'recognized as 
 belonging to them, by Divine Revelation. The superficial thinker may have 
 supposed that the Jewish Governm-w.,'; was invested with powers of 'this descrip- 
 tion. But a more careful attention to the subject will discover that nothing uf 
 the kind pertained to the rulers of that singular people.* The precepts of religion 
 on the contrary, as well as the laws by which the state was to be governed, were 
 all based upon the authority of God alone, and delivered with the utmost preci- 
 sion. To those who were well disposed, therefore, a quetstton of doubt could 
 scarcely arise. But when this, even, happened to be the case, and a matter of 
 extraordinary difiiculiy arose, involving any uncertainty in respect to the path 
 of duty, the question was lefl to be adjudicated upon by no human tribunal. It 
 was referred to neither Magistracy nor Priest. Jehovah reserved that preroga- 
 tive to himself. He must be immediately consulted. To this purpose the 
 Urim and Thummim were provided. When these failed, a prophet or holy seer 
 was specially appointed and Divinely inspired. Here, then, was no room for 
 hitman authority, as nothing was left iohuman opinion. It is further worthy of 
 remark, that as often as these princes interfered, by virtue of their own authority, 
 in matters of religious worship, it was always to corrupt it, and to " make Israel 
 to sin.^' They were skilfuU to lead the people astray, but they had no judgment 
 in the matter of bringing them back. In case of reformation,, we always observe 
 either that a copy of the book of the law is discovered, and serious attention 
 awakened to its instructions, or (which is more common,) the messages of God 
 are authoritatively delivered by an inspired prophet, accompanied witn such de- 
 :iaonstrations of his Heavenly mission, as render his credentials indisputablv 
 clear. Hence, it is too evident, to require fnrther argumentation, that the Jewish 
 Government was not an instrument or agent designed of God for the control of 
 religious faith and opinion In the second place, I might argue this point from 
 the disclosures of modern christian history; to wit, from the fact that every 
 christian government that has at any time assumed to exercise such powers, 
 have utterly failed to accomplish the object at which it has aimed. Fortunately, 
 for our argument, there are not wanting a sufficient number of examples to 
 refer to, Most christian princes have claimed this as one of the functions of 
 their office. Nay, they have seemed to think verily with themselves, that the 
 f^rst, the highest and the holiest of all their gubernatorial duties was to direct 
 tae consciences of their people, and control the worship of God in their dominion. 
 Hence they have addressed themselves to the discharge of this duty with a zeal 
 and a diligence proportioned to the supposed importance of it. To secure its 
 accomplishment, they have callet' into requisition all the resources of their states 
 both pnysical and moral. By power, by terror, by intrigue and stratagem, by 
 diplomacy, by flattery and gola, by every expedient which human ingenuity 
 could invent, or human authority command, have they exerted themselves to 
 accomplish this one point. But they have failed. They have signally failed. 
 They have all sig&diiy failed. Not one exception te the most signal failure can 
 you point out to me. I grant you, that in several cases, their Most Christian 
 and Most Catholic kings have succeeded to a certain extent and for a shor^ 'ime 
 •0 putting down or preventing dissent, i say to a certain extent, and f^r a short 
 
 ;• 
 
1' ^rm 
 
 I?: 
 
 if 
 
 I 
 
 !i'!8 
 
 ii 
 
 it 
 
 i,r 
 
 If 
 
 time. But naone will, I apprehend, claim these as instances of success, who ir 
 acquainted with the means that were pursued in reaching the end. First, the 
 Word of God was suppressed to prevent, as was pretended, the possibility ot a 
 wrong interpretation or it. Jnst as wise a course it would be to put out a man's 
 eyes to save him from becumiug the victim of optical illusions, or to extinguish 
 the sun in the firmament to prevent men from witnessing unlawful representa- 
 tion. Next, the sword of persecution was drawn forth, iitnd dyed with the blood 
 of the saints. •The work of conversion pursued with fire and faggot. In order 
 to purify the church and promote christian charity, cities were oacked and razed 
 provinces desolated, virgins ravished, infants dashed against the stones, and 
 scenes of blood and cruelly enacted, too horrible to be narrated on earth, — fit only 
 to furnish themes of triumph to the most depraved of the devils of hell. Such 
 scenes, I repeat, have been enacted in every case where governments have 
 succeeded, for any considerable time to control the religious opinions of their 
 people. Is this success 1 Is it not the most signal of all failures 1 I might add, 
 furtnermore, though it may seem superfluous, that though the establishment of a 
 christian chureh by law, and the endowment of a parochial clergy for the instruc- 
 tion of the people, and the suppression ot error, looks very well in them, yet 
 aside from the enormities before adverted to, the system has been i-oved b^ a 
 thousand years experience to be utterly inefficient as a means of promoting 
 religious knowledge and elevating the standard of christian morality ; but on the 
 contrary, wherever this system has been raost perfectly organized, and most 
 strictly maintained — wherever the state h'^s given the most liberal aid to the 
 church, and furnished her with the mo^>t absolute authorities, tnere genuine 
 religion has languished most, and ignorance, vice, and immorality have most 
 prevailed. Witness the state of France after the Revocation of the edict of 
 Nantes, and the condition of Italy, Spain, and the South American States, to 
 this day. And on the other hand, wherever the principle of toleration and reli- 
 gious freedom has been admitted, a revival has immediately, in most instances, 
 ensued. Extraordinary activity in religious matters has succeeded to apathy ana 
 indifference. The gospel has been propagated, and christian morals and chris- 
 tian institutions have been diffused among the people. The unparalleled spread 
 of the gospel in the American States has been effected without government aid, 
 or government control, and it is believed few will deny that Engl? 1 owes much 
 of the proud position she holds among the nations of the earth, in a moral and 
 religious point of view, to the voluntary efforts of her christian people. Her 
 Bible Society, aldne, not to mention her numerous missionary, educational, and 
 other societies, has done more towards the evangelization of the world, than all the 
 state churches that ever existed and that now exist. Churchmen, it is true, have 
 taken a high and honorable part in these noble enterprizes. The Church Mission- 
 ary Society is of itself, an institution of which any church or country might well 
 b e proud. Besides, it is well known that large amounts are derived to the Bible 
 and other Societies from the same source. But there are contributions of the 
 christia' people, members oi the church. The Church of England as such, has 
 had no hand in the work, nor can have. Her unhappy position as a pensioner of 
 the state, precludes her from this honor. She cannot pass beyond the limits of 
 her own p. rishes to save a sinking world. Even there she is not free, but {is 
 entirely under the control of a power quite distinct from the church — a power 
 which is not necessarily Protestant— a power not necessarily, even, christian. 
 The vote of a Roman Catholic O'Connel— an infidel Hume or Byron may, at 
 some ^ime, entirely change her course, or restrain her will. Of herself she is 
 helpless to do any part of her Master's bidding. Some may say, in reply, that 
 she has sent a Bishop to Jerusalem, and another to China. But this is not correct 
 It was the state, not the church, who did it. As to the church, she has no voice 
 in the appointment of her own Bishops, even at home, or if she has, it is not a 
 free voice. She is obliged under pains and penalties, to vote as the Gluten, or 
 rather the Minister, who may some day be a Roman Catholic or an infidel, shall 
 diriBct. And now, I ask, is it likely that an instrument for the accomplishment of 
 
*" 
 
 97 
 
 a detain object, appointed by the all-wiseJehorah,^' whom the end, as well as 
 every step in the progress, is perfectly known from the beginning, and who has 
 also promised to be present by hi? Holy Spirit to superintend his own work, to 
 supply strength to his agents, and to give efficiency to all his instruments— Is it 
 likely, I say, that instrumentalities so appoi;.ited and so aided, should for a thou- 
 sand years together, failto produce the slightest beneficial effect ; or that it should 
 in every case, mar and hinder that work, for the advancement of which it had 
 been Divinely appointed 1 Impossible. Then it is impossible that gbvernments 
 are the agents, &c. 
 
 But thirdly, there is another method of pursuing this argument. It is by 
 showing the utter incongruity, or want of fitness or adaptation of the supposed 
 means to the end proposed to be accomplished by those means. And this must be 
 admitted to be a very satisifactory kind of proof when the incongruity can be 
 clearly shown. For instance, should it be asserted by any party, that a post 
 chaise was designed by a wise and skilful mechanic who built it, as an instru- 
 ment or the appropriate machinery for spinning cotton, or fabricating crapes and 
 muslins; even in the absence of every other evidence, the error could be made 
 sufficiently obvious by pointing to the evident unfitness of t^at instrument for the 
 performance of operations so nice, or the productions of commodities so delicate. 
 With equal distinctness shall we be able to show, that there is absolutely no 
 such relation betweeri the civil government and the religious faith and opinion 
 *of the people, as must exist between every instrument and its appropriate work, 
 — between an appointed means and the end it is designed to accomplish. For 
 this purpose little more will be necessary than clearlv to state what is implied in 
 th9 terms religious faith and opinion, or in other words, what is aimed at by those 
 governments which ^ssume the management of the nation's religion. This, 
 perhaps, will best be shown by laying down two or three simple propositions, as : 
 First, Religions opinion is oi no value except in so far as it tends to develope Cbrisiian 
 princii>le and form right christian character. Secondly, Religious faith, (except 
 when taken in the sense of opinion, in which case it is already disposed of,) is that 
 operation of the renewed mind, or that grace of the heart by which the sinner comes 
 to God by Christ — by which the sinner apprehends Christ in his true character as 
 Saviocr — in short, by vhich he is freely justified from all things, &.c. Thirdly, 
 Religion has respect to God, to his government and our relations to him. One of 
 our ablest lexicographers defines it in these words: ' 'Mrtue, as founded on reverence 
 for God and expectation of future rewarda and punisbiineiits ; a system of divine 
 faith and worship as opposite to others. Hence it appears. Fourthly, That religion 
 has its seat and operation in the heart and conscience. What ns essential to it is 
 confined to the hidden man of the hoart. What appears outwardly, in virtuous 
 action, is not of the essence of religion, but its circumstances or consequence. Its 
 essence is conformity with the divine will, obedience to God's law. Its fruit is 
 holiness, the end everlasting life. It is through the afiectionc and disposition of the 
 heart, then, and not by overt actions and outward conduct that we either obey or 
 violate God's law. I do not say that wicked actions are not sinful. Undoubtedly 
 they are. But, 1 say, th& sin was committed, the law was violated before the action 
 was brought forth ; at the moment the wicked purpose was formed in the heart, or 
 the lustful desire indulged in the mind, the command was violated, the sin matured 
 and the sinner rife for condemnation. " But 1 say unto you," with tHe ^reat 
 Teacher, *' that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed 
 adultery with her already in his heart." " Whosoever hateth his brother is a murde- 
 rer," saith the apostle. And again our Lord, ** Those things that come forth from 
 the heart defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murder, adulteries, 
 fornication, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." These are the things which defile a 
 man. It follows then that he is a good christian whose heart is right in the sight of 
 God, though in exterior appearance he be rude, ignorant and uncouth ; and he is as. 
 infidel who banishes €rod from his heart, or who withholds his affections from Cbd, 
 however careftillj he mi^ have studied his creed, or however pnnctaallv he majr, 
 observe all the outward forms of religion. Such is the nature of our most holy religion 
 
T" 
 
 w ■ 
 
 —inward, hidden, ipiritnal ; and aach the tendency of religious faith and opinion when 
 irghtly directed. The dbject is to c6rrect"thc^ 'hearty •nd'to reconciio the sinner 4o 
 Oud. It aimi at nothing less ; it points to no lower attainment. Till -all -this is 
 aeeomplisbed, nothing whatever is done. ' The-alinost christian is no christian at aU. 
 And now need I ask, la there any congruity i>etween a political government, managed 
 by the sword, and carried on by means of a svstem of co>-rcion and force and'auch'a 
 work as this 7 Any fitness or adaptation in the office of Iting, parliament, courts of 
 law, sheriffs,' bailiiTs, policemen, prisons, penalties and pains,- as means for th« 
 ftocomplishment of such an end 7 [Time expired-] 
 
 Rev. VV. Bettridog— In my first address, I endeavored to show what the duty 
 of the state is towards the church — acknowledgingr the t^urch in its divine missien 
 Mid in its independence, and protecting it, and v/hen my time expired, I was saying 
 that It is tiie bounden duty of the state to support the church. I concluded with the 
 observation that I did not concede that the pecuniary support of the church in any. 
 measure compromised the independence of the church, and I still entertain this 
 <^inion, notwithstanding the remarks of Mr. Landon to the contrary. It will be for 
 the public to decide between us. We seek not for the state to interfere as we know 
 was done in the dark ages. We are well aware that in the reign immediately 
 sacceeding the Reformation, the temporal aword was placed in the hands of the 
 church, which punished those who refused to obey the rules o( the church ; but that 
 is not the position in which we desire to stanti. This is not a scriptural position, i 
 am afraid that if you look narrowly into hietory, you will find that there is scarcely 
 any denomination, which, having had power, but have abuSed it," we are not therefore 
 to ascribe it to to the principles of the ctraroh- or ehurohes. -Let ue rather attribute it, 
 in most cases, to the circumstances of the timre. ' 1 should deny history' if I denied 
 that the Church of England did in other times commit persecution, Did- Dot the 
 independents in the reign of Cromwell do the same thing 7 ' Has not the Cbareh of 
 Scotland done the same thing ! '1 will not judge any church by particular accidents 
 or incidents in its history, but by its principles. Now I defy^cny man to point out in 
 the Church of England, any part or portion of "its doctrines which can lead to the 
 supposition or conclusion that' she can ever contemplate' persecution for conscience 
 flake. When she did persecute, it was owing to the circumstances of the times. f)o 
 wonder that when she had emancipated herself from the thraldom which she had for 
 centuries endured, a reaction towards persecution" wtis manife8t«)d ! ' I grieve to say 
 that there is one chnroh that authoratively recognizes and sanction* persecution, and 
 we know that that church only requires 4he 'power; to re-enact former scenes ; but 
 this cannot be said of the Church 'of England. Reverting to my former 
 line of argument, I again say that the supporrt we seek from the state, and which we 
 conceive the siate is bound to give to the diilrch,'by no means involves the thraldom 
 of the church. The church may still be perfectly independent. On the other hand, 
 the support given by the state to the church in no measure perils the authority of the 
 state : as Ion gtta-the church holds its even,,' onward, path in the work of evangelising 
 the subjects of the state, it sustains rather than perils the authority of the state. The 
 two authorities— that of the state and that of the church— are co-ordinate, and may 
 ecist together in perfect harmony — neither infringing' upon the independence of the 
 4>4her. i say, moieover, that to attempt to deprive the state of the assistance which 
 the church can give to the state in furthering the end of its iostitutio - — that is, the 
 weltare of manjiind — would be to deprive it of the most efficient means which it can 
 possibly possess. ' Many things are laid to the charge of the Church of England, 
 which she^neverrecognizeis. Do not judge of the church, then, by what is imputed 
 
 ^ to her by her adversaries, but by what she actually adopts and recognizee. I should 
 be sorry to judge of the principles of an^ denomination by any other standard. 1 
 4iould be sorry 'to suppose that the principle of persecution is to be found in the 
 h<?art of aoy-mau here. Therefore, I claim for my church, the examination which 
 they claim,* and which thev cobcede ts them. I believe that in the present day it 
 
 • ie utterly impossible to find any church, with the exception of the Church of Rome^ 
 which holds any perieenting principle ; or (with the same exception) which canneC 
 fulfil iladiTine nisaion, by pteicbing thafoi^l, without treocbing in aqy neuun 
 
•^^mm 
 
 
 . .75 a> jsAfti 
 
 otttli»«tt1ibriQror.l!M'it«te, Ii^i^.theo, that the «ttt« s^onM ^rapport threhmtb; 
 •pd mvfdo it iirithont io any way endaagerinf iu own powera. In the diicharM <tf 
 this duty, the rights of contcienee are to oe held wored. The atate haa no bnaineM 
 to coerce any man. Mr. Landon is perfectly right <in rayiog that wherever an effort 
 haa been made to coerce the religioaa principlea oi^ny man it has failed. Under the 
 severest persecution that the churcl^ever endured, it passed into a proverb that ** the 
 blood of the martyrs is the seed of the- church." ' While some men were being 
 consigned 10 the flames Tor their religion, ethers came forward, and mvited persecu* 
 tion,. by professinjf the faith oi Jes'JsChristt. I say, then, that coercion never has 
 succeeded, and never canv Where, in ihe present day, is there a church— always 
 exceptinif the Roman Church — whieh desires to infringe on the rights of conscience ? 
 Wliere in Canada, at any rate 7 We are told that el< vhere, a whole people are 
 taxed to support the church of a portion only; but tber 1 nothing of the kind here, 
 and we have no wish to see it introduced. I think one of our friends violated good 
 taste when he referred to Rathcormac. We Canadians (for I liave adopted thie 
 country,, and would speak to you as haviug done the same) do not wish to raise the < 
 feelings of the people against anybody of men. Take us as we are. In the discharge - 
 of the duty which the-state owed to the church — that of providing for the dissemins^.. 
 tion of the word of God-^I ask whether there must not be an extraordinary elasticity 
 of conscience in any man who can include the clergy reserves amongst his grounds of. 
 offence. It i» most extraordinary to me that any man can really say that his ooor- 
 science is oflfended because the Church of England or Church of Scotland, receives a 
 certain revenue from the clergy reserves— from which any of the gentlemen-opposite 
 can derive assistance if they uhoo»e to lake it. Suppose any one of our friends >says, 
 ** My conscience is grievously oflended by the system," I reply, " Don't take the 
 money. But as I <allow yuu-to have a conscience, do allow me to have one too." 
 As a member of the Church of England, I believe that the state is doing -its duty in 
 assisting the church, as 1 believe thttt while accepting the boon of the state, I maintaia. 
 my independence. Refuse, if yon please to accept support to enable yon to preach' 
 the gospel or#o educate vour children, but do not assume the right to regulate my' 
 conscience, seeing that 1 give to you a perfect right to regulate your own. This 
 support I seek is open to all denominations. Let it not be said that the Church of 
 Rome has any. I protest as much against Romish doctrine as any man here. I am 
 as sound a Protestant at heart as any n»n. I yield to no man in my love for Pro- 
 testantism. I yield to no man in my desire to maintain the rights of conscience. But 
 I' claim to have my conscience, and to be permitted to receive the endowment which 
 the state provides. 
 
 Rev. W. Lavdon — I now resume the argument which was broken for a time by the 
 rules of this debate. I ask with what sort of sceptre can the Q^een of 'England 
 govern my thoughts ? By what stat Jtory enactments can parliament bind my feehngs? 
 What court can adjudicate upon the state of iny aflections 7 Yet if the government 
 would make me a christian, or being one, would keep me such— in other words, if 
 government, is to control my faith and opinion, this is the only legitimate field of its 
 operation.. It must place a preventative police force in my soul.' Its bailiffs must 
 bind my conviction. Its prisons must hold my thoughts. Its iaforniers would need 
 be essences of the moral world, and iis witnesses disembodied, nay omniscient spirits. 
 I cannot think it necessary to add a word. 1 re^rard the argument as complete, and 
 the conclusion inevitable; to wit : That governments are not and. cannot be the 
 agents or instruments desigiied of God foi the control of religious faith and opinion ; 
 it having been tbownthat tney are no Lt^rc ilttedibr accomplishing such a work than a 
 post chaise for spinning cotton or weaving lace^ No more congruous to it than the 
 multiplication table is to the elbctric fluid, or the first book of Euclid to the day of 
 judgment. As it respects the remaining propositions : Religious faith and opinion 
 are to be based upon the word of God only, I ought to be allowed to take it for granted. 
 
 that the Bible, and ihe Bible only i» the religion of Prutestaats ;" and to deciy what 
 
T 
 
 I 
 
 It ! 
 
 "! 
 
 
 i.,1 
 
 V :, 
 
 \k 
 
 
 
 j.iii, , 
 
 !i!i 
 
 80 
 
 tBevoftll the " nondescript tyitem of religion now in faihion, that nothing is to be 
 btoheKed tMt whet itf Clewly in ecriplure." 1 wiaJi v)>a( >• here stated were tnie ; 
 that the religion now in fasliion trquired nothing to be believed bat what is clearlv in 
 iBcriptnre. I fear, ho^rever, we have not reached that poiot yet. When we shall 
 reach it, when that sort of religion shall really be fashionable, that is, when all men 
 ehall trnljr reverence God's Word, and implicitly bow to its authority, then will be 
 the millbniuoi and the latter day of glory. Angry controversy will thence fur ever 
 cease. Then the churches will have rest and be edihed, and walking in the fear of 
 the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, will be multiplied. Would that happy 
 season were come. The Lord ha&tea it in his own good time. 4t being, therefore, 
 required to support the proposition with evidence, 1 shall proceed to slate in the 
 ehortest possible way, a few arguments for that purpose — the time at my disposal 
 will admit of no more. The word of God, of itself, is either a sufficient basis for onr 
 faith and opinion, or it is not. if not, then we must seek iordivin > truth from some 
 other source. These most either be written or unwritten. If written they must 
 either be inspired or uoinepired. If inspired they are scripture und already admitted, 
 if uninspired they are not God's words, and therefore their teaching requires exactlv 
 the same sort of support as our opinions ; viz.. That they are exactlv accordant with 
 God's word, in which case we need them pot as we have God's word already 
 with which to compare our opinions. But if these extra fountains of divine 
 trnth, on which we are, in part, to base our faith and opinion, are unwritten 
 traditions, then two things require to be proved before we can receive them: 
 1 St. That our Lord and his Apostles did really deliver, orally, to the churches certain 
 truths above what was written, and which themselves were not designed to be 
 written, but which were, nevertheless, necessary to be known ar d believed by all in 
 order to salvatic n ; and, 2ndly, That these have been faithfully handed down to us, 
 in the same form in which they were delivered — nnadulterated and unchanged. 
 Neither of which admit of proof, bpt on the contrary the strongest probabilities lie 
 against both. Probabilities which, in the absence of all counter evidence, raurst be 
 rejfarded as sufficient proof. Let usexamine the strength of these probabilities. These 
 two classes of truths, it is said, (the written and unwritten) are preci^ly of the same 
 nature and of equal importance and authority. 1 ask them, why were not all written? 
 Or* why was any part written ? Would not the same reasons which made it neces* 
 aarf to wirite a part, equally require that the remainder should be written also 7 Or, 
 if there conld be any reason for suppressing a part and intrusting them to the oral 
 vehicle, would not the same reasons be equally valid for treating the whole in the 
 same manner ! Otherwise it must follow that the suppressed portion is not of equal 
 ' importance with the written. In other words not necessary to be known and believed. 
 In the next place, it is in the highest degree improbable that any such traditions could 
 have reached us from the apostles' days without adulteration or change. The sense 
 of all mankind is, that nothing is so liable to lessor corrupuon as unwritten reports. 
 We never place the least reliance oh the traditions of another age, on other subjects, 
 any further than they are isupported by concurrent history, or are accordant whh 
 known facts. Who has pretended to give us an authentic history of any of the North 
 American nations, even for a single century prior to the landing of the pilgrims ? 
 And do not our courts of law, composed of persons who are supposed to understand 
 the value of evidence as well as any other, promptljr reject everything of this 
 description? The witness is not so much as allowed to relate what he heard 
 from a third person only a week ago. Nor will they receive the testimony of an 
 absent witness, however great the necessity, except with such precautions as show 
 that they regard with the utmort jealousy the transmission of evidence from one to 
 another, as expo^in^ it to almost certain corruption. In capital cases where life ie 
 at stake, no such evidence is admissable in any civilized coimtry. if such is the 
 acknowledged worthlessness of tradition on all other subjects — what security have 
 we, or what warrant is ofTered os, for the truth of those in question. It evidently 
 would not be reasonable for us to receive them on anything less than the assurance 
 that all those through whom they have been transmitted, since the apostlei, were 
 inspired mea ; which would imply a perpetual miracle of nearly 2000 years standing. 
 
\ 
 
 ■a" jl(8jlf 
 
 81 
 
 Ii this preteoded 7 If lo can it be proved 7 If not we are bound to reject all tradition 
 M eTidknee in matlera of religion. Hence then, either the Bible liippliea na with a 
 sure and safficieRt basis for oar frfth and opinions as ehriatians,— a perfect rule of life. 
 Or else we have no such foundation, no certain gaide. Then religion is a dream, and 
 virtue the foundation of the schools, and vice and sin the popular errors of the vulgar, 
 and a future judgment a bug-bear of priest-craft, and time and eternity are cr|||wded 
 with croubt and uncertainty, and canopied with dariiness and horror, ending in 
 despair. Ctiristiaas, is such the case 7 On the contrary, does not God's word do 
 good lo (hem who walk uprightly 7 Is not the law of the Lord perfect 7 And are 
 not the iJoly Scriptures able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ 
 Jesus 7 In conclusion, 1 would notice two or three remarks that fell from Reverend 
 Gonilemen opposite. We are told that there i$ no such thing as persecution for 
 conscience sake, in the present day, except in the Church of Rome. This is not 
 correct. There are at least two other churcliea in the daily habit of persecution. 
 It appears to me that if the Church of Enghiad fulfil the duties prescribed to her in 
 her own formularies, she must persecute. ' 
 
 . Rev. W. B£TTRiuo£ — Show that. . . .. ,„ , 
 
 Rev. W. Landon — Have you not taken a solemn oath — 
 
 Rev. W. Bkttridge — To banish and drive away all erroneous and strange 
 .doctrines. , : ,; ; ; ' 
 
 Rev. VV. Landon— Banishing and driving away imply coercion, and coercion is 
 persecution. Rut in proof of the persecuting habits both of this and another church 
 in the present day, 1 have only to remind you that it was but the other day that 
 Raines, of Leicester, and Shott, of Edinburgh, were immured in prison for their 
 conscientious adhesion to what they considered a chrisiiaa principle. 
 
 Rev. B. CuoNTN — .[ shall notice the last observation Kirst. The gentleman says 
 that we ar^ bound to be ready to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange 
 doctrines. I hope that as far as his'abilitv goes, he is ready to do the same. But 
 he appears to confuse words and ideas. We are bound to banish and drive away 
 doctrine — not persons. And how to drive away 7 By preaching contrary doctrine. 
 By doing as was done some time ago at Woodstock, viz., by lecturing against error, 
 and maintaining truth. That is the way in which we banish and drive away false 
 doctrine. I wish the gentleman had read what we really are bound to do, instead of 
 eaying that, to be consistent, we must drive away persons — degrade them—- perse- 
 cute them — on account of their opinions. That is all a fancy of your own brain, 
 Mr. Landon. It seems to me, that if we be faithful to Christ, it is our bounden duty 
 to drive away error. 
 
 'i Rev. W. Landon — We are bound to givo a reason for the hope that is within us, 
 and to speak the truth in love. 
 
 Rev. B. Cbontn — To rebuke and exhort, with all Irng suffering, if you be faithful; 
 and this is what we are bound to do. What persecutiou is there in this 7 None. 
 It 18 absurd to make- mention of persecution, coupled with such expressions as these. 
 The homily to which the gentleman refers is as wide of the mark as any thing that 
 can bo conceived. All that he has said concerning tradition would do very well if 
 he were combatting a church that held unwritten and oral tradition, as well as the 
 written Word. Bui as applied to the Church of Enylaud, all that he has said goee 
 for nothing. -We did not come here to discuss such matter. We have nothing to 
 do with it. I will give him in a few words — much better words than those which 
 he has selected — what the doctrine of the Church of England on this head really is. 
 1 quote the sixth Article of Faith : " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary 
 to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor be proved thereby, is not to 
 be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought 
 requisite or necessrry to salvation." And I believe my reverend friend on my left 
 (Mr. Bell) of the Church of Scotland, can read from the accredited formularies of 
 his church. equally strong language, setting forth the sufficiency of viod's holy Word. 
 
 ^'-^.••'**-s^^^ >« » ^ y^i^v^ >.V^a',^***-» *,il-''i- jii ."v 4> 4*-;**|fsr 
 
 »«^» «i.|*r i.V jnt 
 
 ■■^'■Ksm(^t^iyip(i> : 
 
t7^ 
 
 11 
 
 IS 
 
 -.if 
 
 
 t 
 
 .1; 
 
 ■1. 
 
 Ikii 
 
 83 
 
 80 Ui«»th« tMtkmMi migktiiav* Uft anMld, til that h« hM MJYMecd oone«roiaf 
 tmdilion. Tbea with rtgard to what haa baan mM aoaearning tba Stata. I waa 
 a«rpriaed to htar a graat oeal of it. We have heard about the etate regulating our 
 opiniona by potting a coMtable in my eoult a policeman in mv heart, and a judge in 
 ny affectioni, and 10 on. Now it not all thia plainly abeurd 7 Who layi that the 
 atata b to regulate the religioua opiniooa ef any man 7 No one. Bat we la^ the 
 atata i» to employ a good eoripturat church t that it the proper meani — that le the 
 only inatrument we recognize , and Qed will blesi the initrument, and the labours 
 of that church. We don't call on the elate to interfere at all with the religious 
 opinionR of the people. Our stale, we know, is representative. We are governed 
 by a represeetative goverumeut ; and the Parllameat of England— which has been 
 ■0 mucn spoken of here te>day, so much villified — is the representative of. the people 
 of Englanid. Well, (heo, the Parliament of England makes a compact with the 
 Church of Cncland, or any other chuEch. We enter into that compact, which is, 
 that the church shall perform a certain work, namelv, the instruction ol the peopUi 
 in religious doctrine and morality ; and that in consideration of this work, the church 
 shall receive certain support. It is a compact e \tered into between the government 
 of the country — the representative of the people of the countiy^-and tne.ichurch 
 with which that government deals. The church is to do its^work of instruoeion, and 
 the eovernmcnt is to do its part, which is, to maintain the church while it performs 
 ita duty. In the same manner parliament employs judges to try criminala, with tUo 
 assistance of juries. In this way, the parliament carries on the work af the country. 
 We say, then, that there is one work wh ch should not be neglected, and this is the 
 point to which we should confine ourselves to-day. We say that government ought 
 lo provide religious inbtruction for the people, as the I>e8t means ofproniotmg 
 the welfare of the people at large. In so doing they are not'to put any constable in 
 cur souls^ or to take any control of our affeciiont— as these gentlemen imagine — but 
 are to provide ministers of Christ — missionaries of his word, ta.go forth and proclaim 
 the unsearchable riches of Christ ; while the jg^overnment are to maintafn, support, 
 and protect them, in the discharge of this duty. 1'hia ia tho real nature of the 
 compact which exists between the government and the church : and, being so, there 
 is no ground tor saying that the government undertake no such thing. If the Par- 
 liament of England, to-morrow, or next session, were to be so changed in its 
 elements that it would come to the decision that the Church of England could not, 
 or ought not to be any lorger employed in the.religiousinstruction of the people, the 
 Church of England would be deprived of the maintenance now afforded by the state, 
 bnt still it would not cease to be a church.. The.gpvernment might adopt the Baptist, 
 the Methodist, or some other body, to do the work now done by the Church of 
 England, but the government in doing, that would only be using its discretion^ 
 withou: abandoning the work which we maintain it is bound to perform. But it is 
 said, '* Your prayer-book bears the impressof parliamentary authority." We know 
 that the prayer-book has been accepted by the parliament of England ae containing 
 that which the church is to teach ; but the church settled her own artioles, her own 
 doctrines, and her own formularies, . Not one word could be changed by any parlia- 
 ment. The churchsaid, " We will teaeh this." The parliament said, **-We accept 
 your teaching." If any ohange be proposed, it must come, not from pftrliam? :t, but 
 from the church — from ihe> con vocation,, the united body of the church', if it be 
 expedient to make any impertaat ohange,. thechurch alone caa make it, not Uie 
 parliamenti Let thia be plainly and clearly uuderstoud^that where the state, as in 
 England, enters intoa^ contract with the church, it 'S because the majority of those 
 who manage ihe aflkin^of the- state, and who are in England the majority of the 
 people--«pprove-of what tha Church of England settled in her own convocation, 
 and with ber own< aia.honty,.flnd without-any interference of Parliament. So long 
 asParliamentnpprnves of tbL8,and maiutaiflsuB,we> teach it in connection with the 
 state.. If Parliament disapprove of ttiis,.aBd wishes to alter il, we must withdraw, 
 stand on our own footing, and do • the work of evangelization without assistance r- 
 maintenance, or support by the government L think.that thia plain statement 
 answeraa great deal of what has fallen from Mr. Landon. Onu or two other thinga- 
 
W>9 P*'^ 
 
 in 
 
 33 
 
 ■*-rt-r '^l 
 
 yet remains to be noticed. He spoke, for instance, of the necessity of the stnto 
 coercing mon, in order to protect property and life, and in order that any man in 
 the community may have the protection of law ; aad this, he says, is all that is 
 required at the hands of government. But is it not always said that prevention 
 is better than curel Would it not be better to convert a thief, or a murderer, 
 into a peaceable, quiet, orderly and honest citi^ten, than to hang him, or to banish 
 him to a foreign land 1 JVlostassuredly it would. Shall we give power to punish 
 men— to erect gaols, pay turnkeys, employ judges, and uliimatoly a hangman to 
 execute the last sentence of the law — but withhold from the state porer to employ 
 ministers to preach the gospel to ignorant and sinful men ? Is that the light in 
 which we are to view Brilisih society 1 We forget the real interests of the state, 
 ns we are assuredly unmindful ot the real duty of the slate, when we speak in 
 this way. If it be the duty ol an individual, after he has been converted to a 
 knowledge of Christ, to do everything on christian principles, (and certainly it 
 is his uuty,) it is equally the duly of the government, of the :t;ite, ol members ol 
 parliament, of every man, to be as religious in the discharge of his public as 
 well as his private duties. When you enter the walls of the House of Assembly 
 are you to put off your Christianity 7 Are you to leave your religion at home ' 
 with your family, or at church— to be very religious elsewhere, but to have no 
 religion in Parliament 1 I believe that every man, whatsoever position he hold.') 
 — whatever station God in his Providence has assigned to him — is called on to 
 act on christian principles; and if he be impressed with a rigiit sense of this 
 duty, he will endeavor to extend the influence of these principles throughout tha 
 land. Such a man will not confine himself to taking care of pounds, shilling-j 
 and pence, but will seek to plant good seed in the hearts of all around him by 
 employing a proper instrumentality. Mr. Landon's reference lo a post-chaise 
 being employed to weave cotton, and his application of ibis illustration to the 
 case of a government identifying itself with religion, seems to me to be very far- 
 stretched. If you want to weave cotton, you must employ a cotton weaver, and 
 the best loom you can get, in order to have the work done cthciently ; and it it be 
 not performed satisfactorily, you withdraw your support, in order to discharge 
 its cluty in relation to the community, the governmtnt is to t-te that ministers of 
 t!ie gospel be provided in every part of the country— the poor as well as the rich 
 — especially the poor, in order that those who cannot pay on the voluntary system 
 — who cannot subscribe to the building of a church — who cannot themselves 
 pupport a minister, while he labors among ihera. The government are bound to 
 do this, and I only regret that the government are not now perCorining it. We 
 are suffering now lor the sins of governments in days past. We see va-st tracts 
 in this country, in which tiie government has not performed its duty. O, if this 
 country were studded, as it ought to have been long ago, with houses of God, 
 supplied with faithful ministers of Christ, whose ministrations could reach the 
 lowest cottages and the most recent comers into the wilderness, how different ^ 
 would be its condition and prospects! It is entirely wide of the mark to come 
 here to speak about the government coercing our consciences, and forcing us to 
 believe this or that No one in the present age advocates any such thing. Mr. 
 Landon made reference to Jewish history, and he rather, of course unintentionally, 
 falsified, the history he q'loted. lie said, that whencv'er lelorms were made 
 amongst the Jews, they were not done by kings, but by some other instrumen- 
 tal itj'. 
 llev. W. LA>fDON- — I said that .such was the case generally. 
 
 Rev. B. Chonyn'— 1 believe they were alwa5's done by kings. When we find 
 Josiah reforming the people, or when we find Hezekiah bringing about a partial 
 reformation, you will find it emanated purely from the king, and was carried out 
 by him. We have an account of Ilezekiah's reign in 2nd Kings, c. 18. 
 
 [Mr. C. was reading from this chapter when his time expired.] 
 
 Rev. J. Pypek — In listening lo the sentiments which have fallen from onr 
 friends opposite, I have felt that in many instances I couM respond a hearty amea 
 
 
 
 I 
 
34 
 
 to much that they hare said. It seems to me however, with regard to the senti* 
 ments advanced by Mr. Bettridge, that while he presented to us much truth — 
 much truth that we all love-— some of the sentiments were presented in such 
 circumstances, and in such relations, as rendered them in a great measure 
 untrue; there being no logical connection between many of his premises and hi^ 
 conclusions. He read an extract, presenting to us the fact that a nation is a 
 moral nerson, and is bound to serve Qod. This is true. A nation is bound lo 
 serve Qod. Rulers are bound to carry out the principles of the Gospel of the 
 Son of God. Rulers are bound to be christians. They are bound to do everything 
 that may devolve on any rational being that has heard the sound of the Gospel 
 of the Son of Gu<l ; they are bound to do this just in the circumstances in which 
 Almighty God has placed them. But what we say of the ruler, we say equally 
 of the tailor and of the shoemaker. The man who makes my Ntioes is under the 
 most solemn obligation to select his stock on christian principles, and to 
 perform his work, and to sell it to me, on the same principles. But because he 
 IS thus bound to be a christian, and tu act as a christian, does it follow thai, there- 
 fore, he ought to have any control in the church of the Living God 1 or that a 
 hoard of tailors ought to have any control, or a board of shoemakers 1 They 
 are bound to be chrisiians ; and in the same way, those wlio are placed over us 
 as rulers in the state, are caFled upon to carry out, as far as thev possibly can, Vhc 
 
 1)rinciples of the Gospel, in that particular position in which the Eternal God 
 las placed them. I was glad to hear from all gcnl.emen that have spoken, that 
 they acknowledge only the power of the Eternal God, who possesses all power 
 in Heaven and earth — the power of the Saviour — and the ultimate authority of 
 the Bible. But it was said that tbis which God possesses must be given to 
 others — that God, must, as it were, delegate His power to a body ol human 
 beings. I ask, to whom can He, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty 
 God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace, communicate his power? 
 Where shall we find a created intelligence strong enough to grasp His wisdom 1 
 Where shall we find a mind sagacious enough to employ the proper instrumen- 
 tality in order to the carrying out of His purposes 1 and where shall we find a 
 lieart large enough to contain his needed lovel An archangel would shrink 
 back from such a position as this. The highest archangel before the Throne ol 
 God would recoil in conscious weakness from such a task. And yet men do 
 " step in where angels fear to tread." Gentlemen have informed us that Govern - 
 ment is a Divine appointment. This hi i often been asserted, but I deny it. 
 The magistracy is a Divine appointment ; civil society is a Divine appointment. 
 But, where, I ask. in the Word of God, do we find the warrant for the conelusion, 
 that what we essentially call government, is a Divine appointment 1 If we refer 
 to writers on practical ethics, they present lo us a very just distinction between 
 civil .society and civil government. It must have been the parent of civil gov- 
 ernment. We have first the parental relation ; we have the parental relation 
 growing into the patriarchal, and the patriarchal springing into the kingly 
 relation, and, higher still, into the imperial relation. Here we find civil society 
 progressing. We find step by step, along with the developeinent of civil society, 
 a corresponding necessity for laws and enactments; and these laws and enact- 
 ments may be regarded, as government — we cannot regard this as of Divine 
 authority. But when we look at the magistracy, we see that it is an ordiaance of 
 Heaven. We see that the powers that be are ordained of God, whether it be a 
 Nero, with his blood thirsty disposition, or our own Victoria, with her tender 
 feelings and generous heart, we say, the powers that be are ordained of God ; 
 and in certain circumstances, we should be under as much obligation to submit 
 to Nero or the Khan ol Tartary, as we are to submit to Victoria. But it cannot 
 be argued from this, that the church and state should be connected— that because 
 God has ordained that we should not live in a state of anarchy — because he ha« 
 ordained a civil magistracy— therefore we are called upon to submit in church 
 matters to the dictation of the powers that be. I cm aware these gentlemen, have 
 aaid, again and again, that the state cannot control them, and I think thQit they 
 
 Vf 
 
iiPIWBP 
 
 85 
 
 nfOke the honest sentiments of their hearts. I think there is principle enouf^h 
 and manliness enough, on the other side, to repudiate the thousbt of being cun« 
 trolled by the state. Nevertheless, tt.ere are some things which I cannot under* 
 Ntand in the light of the expressions used by the gentlemen here. Is ir not a fact 
 that if the estimable Rector of Wuudstuck were taken to his leather's home in 
 the Heavens, and his place were left vacant, it would be for Lord Elgin to fUi 
 that vacancy 1 Lord Elgin might till it if he chose, or he might leave it without 
 a rector if n« were so please 1. , 
 
 Rev. W. BETTRiDaE---He does not touch the minister. 
 
 Rev. J. Pyper— I state a simple fact. Lord Elgin alone could put a rector 
 there. 
 
 Rev. W. BBTTRlDOE—The Bishop would put the rector in, but he could not 
 give him the temporality. 
 
 Rev. J. Pyper— The Bishop could not put the rector there, without Lord Elgin 
 Such is the state of things even in Canada. I ask, does not the King make a 
 liishop. Can a Bishop be made without the monarch, in England) 
 
 Rev. W. BETTRIDG£--YeS. 
 
 Rev. J. Pypek — Vou say that the church does all these things. I have certainly 
 read history to little advantage, if it is not a fact that a Bishop is made by the 
 king. 
 Rev. W. Bettrioge — No. ' ' ' 
 
 Rev. J. Pyper — Not exclusively. There is a portion of the work that the 
 fchurch does. AgaKn : can the Church of England alter one single article of her 
 faith 1 These gentlemen are under her thirty-nine articles, and are subject tu 
 her canons. Can they alter one of these articles, or set aside one of these canons. 
 
 Rev. W. Bettrioge — No. 
 
 Rev. J. Pyper — Here, then, the state controls them. The state gave its sanc- 
 tion to the prayer-book. The state enacted these canons, in the reign, I believe 
 of James the First. These canons are yet binding upon the members of the 
 Anglican church. These gentlemen speak uf the true church. lam satisfied it 
 is contrary to the feelings of their hearts, but still it is matter of fact, that they 
 cannot— dare not—recognize any church as the true church, but the Church of 
 Eagiand. They dare not do it under pain of excommunication. 
 
 Rev. B. Cronny— False— utterly false. 
 
 Rev. J. Pyper— The eleventh canon decrees that the individual who admits 
 that a non-conformist congregation may assume the name of real churches, is te 
 be excommunicated. I give you the sense of the canon. Who says it is false 1 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn — So it is. That canon is not ours at all. 
 
 Rev. J. Pyper— That canon belongs to the Church of England. I speak un- 
 derstandingly, and what I affirm, I can sustain and prove. Again : wherever the 
 Church and State are united, the church is brought into thraldom to the state, and 
 I would, as briefly as possible, look at this idea. The church of God is allied to 
 an earthly king. Look at our spiritual king, Christ says, "My kingdom is not 
 t)f this world." Here, then, we have a king. He, and He alone, has a right to 
 sway the sceptre in Zion. To substitute an earthly king, for Christ, as the head 
 of the Church, is, then, a piece of usurpation which might fill an inielligent 
 universe with astonishment. Who can assume the authority of our Lord,. and 
 who can reign for him] This is no small matter. The individual that grasps 
 the authority of a temporal sovereign, is deemed guilty of one of the greatest 
 crimes that can be commmitted against society; it is high treason, punishable 
 by death. And shall the sceptre of the King of kings be taken from his hand, 
 and swayed in Zioni Shall not the Lord visit those who take such an attitude 
 as this! But it is said here to-day, that these individuals are themselves in sub- 
 jection to the Saviour — that they themselves obey his laws, and acknowledge his 
 supremacy. I ask what would be thought of an individual in England who 
 
36 
 
 
 should assume regal power, and begin to enact laws for Victoria's suhifcl*— trt 
 sway the influence which she sways, and then gravely assert, in extenuation ol" 
 the course he was taking, that he himself was subject lo the dueenl Why, 
 such an individual would lirid n rcstinsj place in a dungeon, on a scaflbld, or in a 
 mad-houae. Tlie dueen could not lay down her authority on such a plea. And 
 will ChriNt allow men to step into his position, and legislate in Zion— enact laws 
 
 enact canons— and lasten them on his people! Will he allow them to build 
 
 up tests aiul standards of orthodoxy, and say. " This is the faith once delivered 
 unto tlie sainl\1" Is it possil)ie that man can do all this, without usurping the 
 place of the Son of Uod— that Saviour who alone can legislate in Zion 1 The» 
 gentlemen j-ay, that they are subject to Christ. I say that the iawof the land 
 must sanctioi'i even what Christ has taught, in order to make it legal in the 
 church of wiiioh they are members, and in any state church. The state is the 
 ultimate authority— not Christ. Appeal to the law of Christ, and Will you hav»i 
 'a hearing 1 Will a man under trial before any tribunal in England, be permitted 
 to defend himself from the Word of God, and that alone 1 Will not the Iawof 
 the land at last meet him, and control him, and settle the easel These gentle, 
 men alfirm that the chmch is not under the power of the state. Not under the 
 power of the state 1 Why, the state enacts law.s that bind the church at every 
 point. Thoiiyh the church may in certain cases do what she pleases, it is because 
 the state allows her .so lo do; but if the state should decree otherwise, then these 
 gentlemen cannot do what they please in the circumstances in which they are 
 placed by the state. 
 
 [Time expired.] An interval of an hviir was agreed npo^n for the purposes of 
 rejrcsh/ncnl } at the e.rpirntion of which,, 
 The CuAitiMAN read the third proposition on :he voluntary side, as follows : 
 3— That tUe Volimt.iry iniiiciple in the Church, for its iwx-'uniary 8iii)p(irt, lias Christ's ex|»reiii 
 Banctiuii, uiiil li.ts pruvid adt-qiiute to all the nectEsitiis that have ocourred lor im 
 mj-iutcuanco auU fiirihe runce. 
 
 Rev. W. Gii.MORK — Tlie proposilion which has just been read may be viewed 
 in a iwo-foKl aspect: the voluntary principle as enjoyinij the sanction of Christ j 
 and the competency ot the voluntary principle to iif ot the exigencies ot the 
 church — vvhciher to sustain her spirituality, or to propagate her religion in the 
 world. It appears to me that the first part ol this proposition has been already 
 discussed thi.s morning, and I may therefore pass immediately from it, with a 
 lew remarks, and attend to the competency ot the principle to accomplish the 
 ends for whieli it was established. One ot the rev. gcntiu men on the opposite 
 side thought that when there was a Divine command, we could not exercise the 
 voluntary principle. We think, therefore,. that it is very desirable to explain 
 terms. We do think that when we exercise submission to Divine authority, wo 
 may be quite vokmlary in our exertion*. The simple fact of there being a Di- 
 vine command, and :)ur obediedce to ti.ai. command, surely does not prove that 
 we are not voluntary in doing it. It, iiun, I understand the proposition rightly, 
 in this connection, wo use the word voluntary in ojipowtion to civil compulsion. 
 If I am incorrect in that, I am quite ready of course, to submit to any representa- 
 tion that is made. I wish to state again, thatin submission lo a Divine command 
 M'e exercise the voluntary principle; but when we aie coimpelled to give of our 
 funds, or to part with anything that belongs to us, in our capacity of subjects, 
 and thi.J is forcibly done, then we conceive that this is a violation of the voluu- 
 trry principle. It has been represented that tithes were not voluntary but legal 
 If the rev. gentleman who made that remark meant that they were legal because 
 God commanded them, we do not differ; but if he meant that the tithes could bo 
 exacted by the authority of the civil magiistrate, that we deny. There was no 
 civil legality — there was a Divine legality. . Let it be fivrther observed that the 
 tithe is uniformly put thus;. or, if not uniformly, at least six times out of the 
 twelve in which there is reference to it in the Old Testament; . I. say that at least. 
 in six instances the principle is put thus: the tithe is given to the Levite, to iIk 
 widow, to the fatherless, aad to the stranger; and if the civil magistrate coulL 
 
thl 
 
 fK)l enforce tithe to be'naM tothe Levlte »pon the same prfncf pie he could not 
 enforce tithe to Us paid to the strani^cr, to tlio widow nrid to the i'iitherlcH«i, 
 My renson for referring to this iN, that I tliinl< it lias not been HtitHciently explained. 
 for 1 never could view the tithe in any oilicr lij?ht than a% voluntary. It orieina- 
 i^(Lin a voluntary net. Wht* enforced Ahralmin to p;iy the tenth of Win upoils lo 
 Melchlzede.^k] Who M-ns 'he civil Juiihoiityl ua« it not voluntary f And 
 what was it that induced Jacob to give a tenth o( all that he had acciuircd in his 
 absence 1 And then, be it observed, that the Levitc, the kinjf, the magistrate, 
 could not know whether a man had given a tithe or not: this was left entirely to 
 his own conscience, and he liad to appeal only to his Creator that he had given 
 tithe. The magistrate could not know whether he had done f^o or not, nor coukl 
 the Levite. I beg leave to read a pas.sage; I iright quote many, but I shall rend 
 one where I think this principle is very clearly and very fully .sustained. My 
 object is to show that tithes, under the Ibrmcr system, were voluntary, so far aa 
 the civil magistrate was concerned— done under Divire authority, but left to t!»c 
 conscience ot the man that mnde the tithe in his own house, and laid it up on liis 
 gate, to meet the wants of the Levite, tiie stranger and the widow. I quoti^ Deu- 
 teronomy, 13 c, 2(5 v. : " When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of 
 thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing and hast given it unto 
 the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless and the widow, that they may eat within 
 my gates and be filled; then thou shall say before the Lord thy Ood, I hare 
 brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them 
 unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, tothe fatherle.ss, and to the widow, accord- 
 ing to all th> commands, which thou hast commanded me." He says this in his 
 conscience, in the presence of his Maker, making an appeal to Him that he has 
 really made the tithe. The text goes on: "Look down from thy Holy ILibita- 
 lion, from Heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land whi'h thou hast 
 given us, as thou swearest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and 
 honey." I understand by this, that the civil magistrate did r.ot know that that 
 man had given a tenth of his property, and could not know of it except by his 
 own information: and the civil magistrate could not constrain him to pay it, 
 any more than he could constrain him to pay the strnnger, the fatherless, and the 
 widow. Consequently, I concei' e hat there was no civil coercion employed — 
 that it was a voluntary offering, made according to the Divine command, and in 
 the sight of God. And now, without dwelling any longer upon this subject, I 
 may further observe, that it must be taken for granted, that it has been proved 
 that Jesus Christ has established the voluntary principle in the New Testa- 
 ment as the reverend gentleman opposite do not deny that the voluntary 
 principle is established, and established too, by Divine command. That law 
 was read this morning, as it occurs in the 1st Corinthians, c. 9; and having 
 been already discussed, I think it unnecessary to go into the merits of it; but it 
 is very obvious to me, that even late as the days of John, it v.'as the method, and 
 if yon please, the only method, of propagating thu gospel. In tho 3r(l Epistle of 
 John, it is written : " Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the 
 brethren and to strangers, which have some witness of thy charity before the 
 church ; whom if thou bring forward on their journey alter a godly sort, thou 
 shall do well : because that for His name's sake, they went forih, taking nothing 
 of the Gentiles." We should not be beholden lo any woi'ldly man lo support our 
 spiritual religion. Wo feel that there is competence and energy sufiicient in the 
 principle, which the great Head of the Church has established, at once to edify 
 the people of God, and to extend the kinsrdora of Jesus Christ. And now I ccme 
 to tne competency of the principle. The rev, gentlemen on the opposite side 
 thought it was necessary I should pass over that part of the proposition, but this 
 I do not intend to do. The second part of the proposition is, that it— the ^'uluntary 
 principle — is competent to accomplish the object, namely the edification of the 
 church, and the extension of the church. Now, if my time would alK w me to 
 go into pecuniary arrangements, which however, it will not, I might say a great 
 deal upon .what is undsergtood by this "competency," for I am fully persuaded 
 
 ^1 
 
 ■■'! 
 
TT"^ 
 
 j ■* 
 
 |.:.:i; 
 
 « 38 
 
 that the voluntary principle is a rery economicAl one , aa4 must be very skilfull/ 
 maoaged. If it be deemed necessary thai a cler^^/man should get £l(l00 per an- 
 nam, or £500, or even that he s^ sum get X^ , uiidei- all circumstances I do noc 
 know that the voluntary principle would do it. It wo iiK) perhaps be said. "We 
 think you might live on less." It might be said further, " Woa't it be enough 
 if you get three times t'.e average income of our members'?" For I imagftis 
 that the average income of members oi congregations would not exceed £\Si per 
 year, though some would have less, others would have much more. Probaoly 
 then, the voluntary minister might be asked, •• Would you not be satisfied with 
 thre" times ;e40, to labor amongst us"?" Then the question arises, how much 
 would it take per individual to support a minister who has a church of a thousand 
 souls 1 I suppose it woula take tnree shillings from each individual. But sup- 
 posing that one half of them would not be voluntaries, let us take six shillings as 
 required to be paid yearly by the other half. And verily I hope we are not going 
 to be inferior to the Jews in their liberality. They gave a tenth of their income j 
 and are we to be satir ' v with giving a thirty-fifth of our income— for in the 
 case I have suppos'^-^ is all ."" -^ ribution amounts to. But I pass from 
 
 this point because then ^re other things demanding my attention. You observe 
 
 odus : " every one." And a^ain, we come do\s n to the Epistle to the Corinthians : 
 " every one ot you." x hd then after this, there is another element : " every^ one, 
 
 encv. I take <ip the voluntary principle as thus bid down in the New Testa- 
 ment, and there is no exception to it in the Old* I p. -sume that the Divine Spirit 
 intended to instruct us in this principle. Then it was to be done periodically 
 —every week. And if we lojk at chnrch history, we find that they paid great 
 attention to this W3t kly contribution, and, in the churches of Africa, afterwards, 
 monthly. Now who will doubt that the christian religion prospered exceedingly 
 during ihe first century. Let us take the authority even of a heathen writer on 
 this point— I mean Pliny, and whether the date of his letter was 107 or 110, you 
 must admit that the christian religion had spread most extensively throughout 
 that region of country. In addition to this, the Apostle Paul tells us that the 
 fospel was preached throughout all the earth, when he wrote the Epistle to the 
 Colossians— say A. D. 60, or 65; so that there had been a very rapid spread of 
 the gospel of Jtjus Curist in about 36 years. And it is a fact to which I wish to 
 call the attention oi' the rev. genil<?men on the opposite side, that in th:? cou)rse of 
 all their itineracy, never dff we hear the apostles complain cf want pf funds to 
 keep them in any locality. Never, I say; and yet we know that at that time the 
 state afforded no relief. It stands before us that they never did leave any locality 
 ui.attended,|ior Mant of fjnds; and I am sure the i.j>irituality of the church' wa» 
 as well preserved as it is in the present day. I have been gratified exceedingly 
 by the very definite and repeated reference of the rev. gentlemen ol the opposite 
 side, to the simple gospel of Je3us Christ as then pre.^'.ched. "Vet, as I have said, 
 the wants of every locality were then met. And as far as my memory will atlow 
 me to range over church history, at least during the second end to the middle of 
 ♦he third century, I do no» remember an instance where there was a complaint 
 that the church could not keep the preachers ol the gospel for waut of lunds 
 Still, up to that time, there was no assistance affbided by the state. The rev. 
 gentlemen on the opposite side may perhaps ti able to find v a instance, where at 
 the liine spoken of, the gospel was not preached for want of funds : but I cannot 
 now call one to mind If the matter be, then, as I staie it, I think we may con- 
 clude that there is an efficiency in the voluntary principle, skilfully managed— 
 scripturally managed- -at once to support the religion of Christ, and to suitaio 
 rf^-Ci edification of. the church. 
 
■^ 
 
 80 
 
 rw-jla replying to ths gentlf nan who has just sat down, I shall, in 
 ake up the subject of tithes, which he has handled somewhat at 
 
 H&v. B. Cbc 
 
 the first place, take 
 
 large, though that subject has in reality no reference whatever to the proposition 
 before us. But still I would beg to correct his statement with regard to tithes. He 
 speaks only oft^ne tithe, as commanded by God, and as paid by the children of 
 Israel ; forgetting that there was another tithe—b tithe given altogether to the Levite, 
 and paid lo ijic Levite We had a statement concerning it in Numbers, 18 c, 21 v. 
 **And behold I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel, for an 
 inheritance, for their servi' ,/hich they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of 
 the congregation." Thut. we see there was a tithe appointed, which was to be paid 
 to the Levites, and was of course created for them. But we read also oi that other 
 tithe mentioned by the last gentleman. The mention of it occurs in the latter part 
 of Deu.teronomy. It was n tithe which was intended for the Love Feasts, as they 
 were called amongst the Jews — the feasts which were given to the fatherless, the 
 widow, and the poor that inhabited any of the towns. This second tenth which was 
 or purposes of charity, was not to be paid over oraccounted for to the Levite. This 
 u altogether a different showing from that of the Rev. Gentleman. He will see that 
 these two tithes are distinct and different things. Every writer of authority you 
 consult on the matter will tell you the same thinj — that the tithe paid to the Levite 
 was accounted for to him, and given to him as his due — as his portion and inheritance, 
 because he served the tabernacle of the Lord ; whereas, the other was given tv) these 
 feasts of love and charity; at which they were to entertain the widow, and the poor, 
 and the fatherless, within their gates. But with tithe we have here nothing to do. 
 Tithe, we know, has been paid in England — nominally, at all events — and in Ireland. 
 These tithes were given of old for spiritual purposes, by individuals who had a right 
 (o property in the land, and they have been retained as a rent charge on the land 
 there. But we have nothing to do with it here. We are here speaking of an endow- 
 ment provided by a pious king, which we wish to have retained for the purpose for 
 which it was originally intended — that is, the dissemination of religioi. and the 
 propagation of the gospel, throughout the land. These gentlemen wish ^ have it 
 alienated from that object. With reference to the sufhciency of the voluntary 
 principle, I was somewhat amused with the financial calculation of the Rev. Gentle- 
 man, and I do think there are some here who were disposed, as well as myself, to 
 smile at it. He calculated the average income of all men in a congregation at £,^^0 
 a year. Now we know there are persons here who have congregations (I am not 
 speaking of the clergy of the Church of England, but ministers of other denominations) 
 V'hose average income is not £40 a year, but £400 or £500. I am sure that the 
 copgregations in Toronto average far beyond £40. If three times the average 
 incomes of the congregation is to be the scale on which the clergy are to receive 
 suctenance, tL<;n there will be very great inequaliti' — very great injustice. The man 
 who lives in a town, and ministers to a wealthy congregation, will have three times 
 the average income of those wealthy men: he will have to £1,000, or more. Whereas, 
 the minister in the country will have three times £40, perhaps, or not even th. —for 
 tu poor and scattered neighbourhoods, the average does not amount ro that. £:it this 
 matter, again, has nothing to do with the question .n hand. The question is, is 
 voluntaryism eufficient, not merely to preach the gospel in towns and villages, and 
 throughout densely populated places, where men are able and willing to support the 
 worship of God — but, is it a syitem that can cover the country, and fill all its nooks 
 And corners, with the gospel 7 Is it a system which can carry the gospel to every 
 tnau*8 door in the country ? I say it is not. I can prove that it is not. In the early 
 days of Christianity, it did not accomplish this. For 300 years, men laboured — men 
 of God, men of inspiration, men who possensed the influences and gifts of God's 
 boly spirit in a large measure ; these men laboured for 300 years, and yet what de we 
 read at the close of that period 7 L call your attention to the beginning of the fourth 
 ttentury, ag we have it in the Ecclesiastical History of Mosheim : — 
 
 ** There remained still in the European provincei, an incredible number of per- 
 MM who adhered to the ironbip of the gods ; and though the ebristian bishopi 
 
 i'. 
 
 :;l ■ 
 
 i 
 
 
 r 
 
 :*' 
 
.'* 
 
 v^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 eontinuod their pious eflbrts to gain them over to the (rospel, yet the SQCceas wa* 
 by no means proportionable to their diligence and zeal, and the Work of converaioa 
 went on but slowly.*' 
 
 This was the state of things after 300 years of laboar, and the voluntary system, under 
 iiU the advnnlajjos that could possibly be giv^n to it. Men working miracles — nieu 
 endowed witli God's spirit — men gifted with tongues that they might go thr<ughont 
 the nations of the earth: these men laboured 300 years, and laboured i.icessantly, and 
 yet we 6nd that in the Enropean provinces, there still remained an '' incredible 
 number" of those who worshipped false goda. But we read shortly afterwards, that 
 when Constautine was converted — when he began to acta? a christian man, and to 
 employ his exalted position and influence in the propagation of the truth in his empire 
 —there was an immense spread of the gospel throughout all the provinces, and 
 beyond the bounds of the empire. We hnd that in one century Christianity pad© 
 more progress throughout the world, than in the three centuries before. Tins is au 
 historical statement, and I chullonge examination with regard to it. Here, then, 
 we see that the Emperor Constantino, when he was convinced of the truth of 
 Christianity, under the teaching of the men of God who then lived in the church in its 
 pure state (for it was then comparatively pure, though some corruption? had been 
 introduced) regarded it his duty to employ his influence as emperor in spreading the 
 jgospel throughout his dominions, and in discountenancing idolatry and the worship 
 of the gods. Such is the statement with regard to the sufficiency of voluntaryism ia 
 those days. It was not sufficient in the primitive times, and wc know it is not 'infR 
 ciont now. Look at England, where an establishraetit exists. That establislir "n^ 
 is not commensurate to the wants of the country; it has not kept pace with lie 
 growth of the country ; the state has not done its duty by enlarging the bounds of the 
 establishment, and supplying additional church accommodation, and additional 
 mini^'wr", as the people increased. We know parishes that were formerly villages, 
 having o...* church, that now contain hundreds of thousands of people, yet have still 
 only one church and one pastor. If that be ihe case, whose fault is it 7 It is not the 
 fault of the system, but the fault of the state, which does not work out that system, 
 if, then, Ent>land is left in the state of spiritual destitution in which — according to 
 the best statistical accounts — it is, we must come to the conclusion that tiie voluntary 
 system is insufficient to perform the work of evangelization — -the work of preaching 
 the gospel, and bringing it home to every man in the country. The gentleman who 
 has just sat down appears to me to take a verv limited view of what we, as ministers 
 of Christ, ought to aim at. His views appear to be bounded by this — that the gospel 
 shall be preached to those who are willing^ to hear it — those who are willing to pay 
 for it — those who have £40 a year, and who wil give three times that sum in order 
 that a minister may live amongst thorn. But we should go beyond that, we should 
 preach the gospel to every creature. And wo say that provision ought to be made 
 for it. We cannot do so individual!]-, as men. We have no organization, or instru- 
 mentality, to enable us to do it, unless provision be made for it. We say, that the 
 Apostles were commanded by God to teach nations as well as'individuals ; and a 
 nation cannot bo discipled — every part of a counrry cannot bo visited, and provided 
 with the ministrations ot religion — the gospel cannot be brought to every man's door 
 — without a full and adequate supply, by the state, of good, and proper, and spiritnal, 
 and scriptural instrumentalities. The slate has a duty to perform. We heard 
 something from the gentleman who spoke before the adjournment, about a corporation 
 of shoemakers or tailors, being formed to christianize the world, or manage the 
 church. This is not the way to argue upon solemn subjects. These'men have their 
 duty to perform to their customers, and they are bound to act on christian principles 
 —10 let their work be good and honest ; but they have nothing to do with government. 
 Who made them governors ? Who placed on them the responsibility of christianizing 
 a people ? If they belong to a church, they have a right to a voice in that church- 
 to a place in it— but to the place of those who are ministered unto, not of those that 
 k""!^*^'^' ^^* ™'ght as ..ell say that because, as shoemakers or tailors, they are 
 bound to get and supply good material, tnerefore they arc bouni to get and give gooci 
 
 :'f^- 
 
a 
 
 
 sermons. The responsibility of providing Ihe latter rests with the minister. And in 
 the eame manner, the responsibility rests with the state to do the work of the statv — 
 with a {[oveinment to do the work of a government. A responsibility rests on our 
 gracious QueVn, and I trust and pray that she rnay be able (o discharge that respon- 
 mbility, by her influence and her example in her position in society ; and that by 
 every means within her reach ' he will aid and assist the propogation of sound, scrip- 
 taral principles throughout the land. Is not the virtue of our Queen a glorious 
 example to her people ? And if she were to forget her high station — if she were to 
 forget her high responsibilities — and were to abandon the gentle, womanly demeanor 
 that marks her on all occasions, would it not bo a bad example alighting upon 
 Christianity? If she were to forget her Christianity, would it not be wore? still 7 
 .If she were to forget the living God and Christ, and were to forget that dhe is bound 
 by her example, and by every means that come within her reach, to promote the 
 interests of Christ's religion in the land, and thereby to promote the best interests of 
 her subjects — it would bo p gieatej" evil than all the others put together. I had 
 marked several passages m order to prove from ecclesiastical history that under the 
 voluntary system, during the three first centuries, the church of Christ, not only did 
 Hot exist and spread as it afterwards existed and spread, — not only did not increase 
 in the empire — but that it was only in larye towns, where there were large and 
 wealthy congregations (having a Ijigher average than £40 a year) that christ'anity ^ 
 did take root. The villagers — the pagi — throughout the Roman Empire, were left 
 without the gospel. Hence, pagan became another name for villagers, because they 
 lived where the gospel of Christ had not been preached. The small communities 
 were necessarily neglected, while in large communiiies Christianity was established, 
 and large numbers were converted to the faith. But under that system, was the 
 church so altogetlier pure ? Was the church so altogether perfect, that no fault 
 could bo found with it — that no evil coulu be traced in U ? Are we to pay that when 
 Constantine was converted, and when he established Christianity as the religion of 
 his empire, all kinds of corruption tnen came in ? We read concerning the second 
 and third centuries, as they are described by Mosheirain his Ecclesiastical History : — - 
 
 " There is no institution so pure and excellent which the corruption and foUy 
 of men will not in time alter lor the worse, and load with additions foreign to' ita 
 iiature and original design. Such, in a particular manner, was the fate of 
 Christianity. In this century [the second] many unnecessary rites aud ceromoniea 
 were added to the christian worship, the introductioiv of which was extremely 
 offensive to wise and good men. These changes, while they destroyed the beautitul 
 simplicity of the gospel, were naturally pleasing to the gross multitude, who are 
 more delighted with the pomp and 8plelldon^ of external institutions, than with 
 the native charms of rational and solid piety, and who generally give little attention 
 to any objects but those which strike their outward geases." r ■ •' • '**—"«>•» --a. 
 
 This was under the voluntary system. This was before connection with the state 
 'lad at ah corrupted the churcii of God. To what must we trace this circumstance ? 
 To the innate depravity of the human heart. It was foretold that the Man of Sin 
 thonld be revealed — the son of perditio: — and nothing could stop it. It was foretold 
 that the apostacy shc.^ld take place, and nothing could hinder it, that apostacy has 
 continued in existence up to ti»e present time, but we know that its days are numbered. 
 Prophecy declares to us that the time will come when it shall be prononncec' — 
 "Babylon is fallen, is fallen." But the evil has existed for a long period— c<^cn 
 froni the very commencement of the christian era. The Apostle Paul tells us that 
 in his own time the " mystery of iniquity" was working — it was beginning to work. 
 We are told also that in'the days of the Apostle John interests were set up, opposed 
 to Chrii«t'8 interests. \\(e know that there were false teachers everywhere. We 
 know from the Epistles, that errors had crept into the church, and that some of the 
 Epistles were written to correct these errors. Therefore, the voluntary system did 
 iiot preserve the purity of the church. Under the most favourable circumstances— 
 yjth all ajjplianoes and means to boot — it did not do it. Corruption spread. Up to 
 
 ^V fi l 
 
"^^^w 
 
 ( ■ It. 
 
 
 42 
 
 tH« beginninf of the fourth centary, when Conatantine was converted, correptfOH 
 went ou abouading^ and increasing, more and more. [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev, Mr. Ormston — It givee me great pleasure to meet you here to'dajr, for a 
 variety of reasons. I always Ike to meet where there is the ** feast of reason 
 and the flow ot soul," sanctified by religion, and where the sympathies of many 
 hearts are pledged for the advancement of a great cause. But there are other 
 reasons why I am exceedingly pleased to have been among you here, it is that I 
 should have had the pleasure of hearmg sentiments expressed by these reverend 
 rectors, which I never heard from rectors before. 1 never before heard such large- 
 hearted benevolence and beniiicence from any rectors, addressing e public meeting ; 
 and therefore I rejoice to have had an opportunity ol being present on this occasion. 
 MothinlLS I have a much higher opinion of rectors than I ever had before. I'he 
 western atmosphere is purer than the eastern ; but at any rate your western rectors 
 are much more large-minded than rectors I have seen in the east. Here we are 
 recognized by them as brethren ; but in the east, rectors stigmatise us as schismatics, 
 and our places of worship, instead of being recognized as churches, are derided as 
 conventicles. 1 have been so kicked and cufled by eastern rectors, that I am glad 
 that 1 have now hear ' from the lips of ordained episcopalians, words so kind and 
 clieering as those whic ' " ^eeu spoken here to-day. Then, again, 1 have heard 
 our brother of the Scotii. ' k confess that the chu<-ch can do well without sup- 
 port from the state. Hencc .ly advocacy is not needed, because the proposition is 
 to a certain extent granted. Moreover, I have heard that all denominations may 
 receive aid from the reserves. The exclusive days, when the church of England 
 ministers claimed to be regarded as the only "Protestant clergy," are over. The 
 esclusiveness is abandoned. The time when the church of Scotland had to seek 
 the assistance of tne Attorney General in order that her ministers might be classed 
 among •* protestant clergy," are over — never, never to return. We have now an 
 improved system in this matter — decidedly improved. We hear of "changes com- 
 ing over the spirit" o( men's dreams, but here we have a change in fact — in things 
 real and solid. I cordially greet you, brethren, and congratulate you on this im- 
 provement in your manners. Another new and most delightful doctrine which I 
 hav(^ heard to-day, for the first time, is this : that if Parliament does not behave 
 itself, the church of England will be Ub servant no longer ; and, again — still another 
 novelty ! — that if Parliament pleases, it may withhold support from the chureh of 
 England, and transfer it to the Weslejans, the Baptists, or any other body. I never 
 heard that before. I never heard churchmen admit, until now, that Parliament has 
 a perfect right to do as it likes — even to the extent of severing its connection with 
 the church of England. We mean to go to Parliament and say it shall do this. 
 Another thing worthy of notice is, that the church — or at all events, our fiiends the 
 rectors — utterly repudiate every vestige of persecution. That is another glorious 
 doctrine. No poor man's clock shall now be seized to pay church rates. No poor 
 dissenter shall have his family Bible sold, to enrich the minister of a church to which 
 he does not belong. No cannie Scot shall be again thrust into prison, because he 
 will not pay the annuity tax. No half-starved peasant's pigs shall be tithed at the 
 bidding of the ^ ^ ;or. 1 never expected to see so many new lights spring up in tue 
 quarter whence these have emanated. Why, the old dominant church is gone — 
 positively gone — gone with the consent of the rectois. They say there are to be no 
 more penalties. Every man is to give whathe likes — exactly what we have all along 
 propobod. It is plain that with ao many concessions, this establishment is reduced 
 to a nonentity. What is a law without a penalty ? What is a penalty without a 
 ooUector 7 and what is a collector without a sword ? The truth is, the time has gone 
 by when fires and faggots can be employed by any church. But there is a kind of 
 persecution more horrible and more excruciating still — a system of perverting influ- 
 ences, brought to bear on the heaven-endowed intellect of man. This is the very 
 hardest kind oif all persecution. Barbarous terms — " dissenter" or *' heretic" — aro 
 hurled against a man, and forthwith men shut him oat from their sympathiei.*- 
 Unfortunatdy, a consciantioiM dissenter cannot come withio the circle of rectorial 
 
48 
 
 '""V 
 
 Mcialitiei. Tbi« is the case in the east ; ia the west it seems to be somewhat 
 different ; and therefore I say again, I am pleased to Le here. Let nie, however, 
 notice the question now before us. Is the voluntary principle sufficient to cover the 
 whole country— to fill it with God-servinff, God-loving people 7 Gloriously suffi- 
 cient : God hasten the time when it shall be triumphant ! We have heard a great 
 deal about the first three centuries, and docaments have been read to show that* 
 under the voluntary system, Christianity did not succeed. But we have never setrn 
 anything like it since. I attach very little weight to what was said as to the rapid 
 spread which it made when Constantino took it under the protection of his sword and 
 crown. That sort ot general conversion may be done by consecrating the waters 
 of an immense river, and calling that making the country christian. Such a plan, 
 or mode of practice, may christianize a whole nation, nominally, but it can never 
 chri8tiai.ize a single heart* Again, we are told that in England the state has not 
 supplied the gospel to the poor. That was a noble confession. I, too, say the same 
 thing. The state church has not done it — never can do it — never will do it. She 
 has four millions at her command, but give her forty millions, and she would not do 
 it. She has done so much (the rector says) with four millions, give her forty, and 
 she would do much more. I may paraphrase the idea, and apply it to voluntaryism : 
 under all its disadvantages it has done much ; let it have fair play, and it will do'more. 
 Hear our commission : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
 creature." A splendid and mosi holy commission ! A coiiimissioi\ that will not be 
 fulfilled until every soul has heard the glad tidings ! But there is nothing in this 
 commission about giving authority to states to christianize whole peoples. 1 want 
 to know, then, who gave Parliament auth rity to christianize the country. Assuredly 
 not my God — not my Lord — not the Bible. And on the same principle that a board 
 of shoemakers and tailors cannot do it. I maintain that neither Parliaments, nor 
 kings, nor queens can do it. The Queen has heen referred to by the last speaker. 
 We all revere her ; I respect hor for her virtues, and if she — withal so viituous — gave 
 of her pocket money to promote the diffusion of the gospel, 1 should revere her still 
 more. But to make her the head of a religious establishment — to impose upon her 
 the responsibility of christianizing the nation — is to forget the actual duties of her 
 liigh office. Amongst the arguments that have been used on the subject of endow- 
 ments, one gentleman has pointed to the fact that the London Mssionary Society 
 endow men, and give them £1U0 a year to preach the gospel ; and that, he says, is 
 inconsistent with voluntaryism. Of course these are voluntary gifts ; and if they 
 were more frequent, so much the better. If splendid endowments of this nature 
 were more frequent, voluntaryism would remain firm as now, while it would be 
 enabled more extensively to spread a knowledge of the gospel, and to overcome the 
 benumbing, the chilling influences ot church establishments. I hope to see thou- 
 ssuds rolling in mere rapidly than now, f .eling quite sure that that may be the case 
 without at all jeopardising the integrity or strength of voluntaryism. 1 have been 
 much amused by the ideas which some of the speakers have endeavoured to repre- 
 sent as voluntaryism. Their policy, in this respect, seems to have been to imitate 
 the old practice of manufacturing and putting up men of straw, that they may display 
 their valour in pulling them down again. We have heard something about defining 
 terms, and 1 admire the plan. Let me, then, try to explain what is meant bv volun- 
 taryism. . It is often misunderstood or misrepresented. Men who want to do battle 
 against it, very often draw on their imaginations very largely, and conjure up some- 
 thing hideous and absurd. According to those oracles, voluniaryism is infidel in 
 principle, and vicious in practice. Voluntaryism does not imply that we are under 
 uo obligation to promote our religious opinions. We feel that in this respect every 
 roan is under obligations to the law of God, which is a law much higher than the 
 law manufactured in Parliament. It is impossible that men can have ^religious 
 opinions, and not desire to propogate them. They cannot keep them if they would. 
 Every man is bound by the law of heaven to promulgate his opinions : Toluntaryism 
 ■ava that the obligatian'is not voluntary, but the act is. Religion is a purely iudividual 
 thing, resting between man and his Maker. What we call national religion, is the 
 reMgioQ which all the individuals in a nation profess and practice. But as for that 
 
 V 
 
 • 
 
 1,1 
 
 ii 
 
 III 
 
y 
 
 <I''H 
 
 rnrporate thing, which our friends opposite call national religion, it is a thing having 
 H huge body ; 1 »lwa\H tbonght it had nothing else, but I have 'earned to-day lljat 
 h haa a aoul, and coiiaeqwently responBibility. Now I conceive that no really godly 
 whole can evor be made by a conglomeration of ungodly parts. We do not mean 
 that kings and queens are not christians. Alas for them if they are not ! Do not 
 nocuse ua of wislung that they were not christian. We want them all to ho such ; 
 hut we do not wish them to do more in their official capacity than they are required 
 TO do. They aro not reqnired to tako chatge of religion in their kingly or queenly 
 capaciiy ; and by the same rule, Parliaments are not required ts legislate in religious 
 mat'cni. Voluntarjism does not mean that there is no religiouB truth ; but it does 
 menn that the Ntate has no right to take any particular creed by the hand, and say, 
 *• this alone is truth." We declare that there is religious truth — . 
 Hev. W. BKTTniuoE — So do 1. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Okmsto.n — But we say further, that no man should be compelled to 
 I upport another man's fhilh, nor even be compelled to support his own. Voluntary- 
 ism says that Christianity should be left to niamlain and protect itself in the world, by 
 ils own inherent, divinely-civen powers. It neither needs nor desires foreign aid ; 
 Snt, on tho contrary, repudiates all alliance with cis^il powers. The illustration of 
 I'aul, which is so often dragged in to support the state payment of the clergy isspocitic. 
 'rhe ox that trondeth out the corn Ih not to be muzzled ; but no ox, while treading out 
 ;;)y corn, should ^ut out of my neighbour's stack. No man, while trirtiming my 
 <ino, should steal my neighbour's grapes. No labourer, working for hire, and entitled 
 o hire, should do yuur work, nnd come to me for payment. A shepherd is entitled 
 «) milk from the flock he tends, but he has no authority in scripture, or any where 
 Ise, for stealing his neighbuui 'a milk. Imightcarr}' the illustration further, bull 
 *avo saiJ enon;;h to exemplify the principle of voluntaryism, which is, that every 
 >mn must be left to maintain his own reliprion. You maintain yours ; I will maintain 
 nine ; of thr manner in which you and 1 discharge our duty, God alone is to be judge, 
 /he scriptures tell us that those who serve at the altar shall live by the altar ; aud 
 yoIuntaryii<in in no way abrogates the command. [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. G. 11ki.i, — 1 have been exceedingly anxious to find out what is meant by the 
 
 '.oluntary principle. It seems to me, that the definition usually given to it is this : 
 
 rhat a jiiinister is to be supported by the voluntary contributions of those to whom he 
 
 linisters. If that be not a correct view of the nature of voluntaryism, 1 should like 
 
 iknow what it is. There has been a good deal said by the reverend speaker who 
 
 ns just sat down, to the efiect that it is customary to build up a man of straw and 
 
 111! it voluntaryism, and then knock it down, it possibly may be so, but at the same 
 
 me it must be remembered that it is equally so to build up a man of straw, call it 
 
 le establishment principle, and then to knock it down also. It is my firm conviction 
 
 kat a state support of reIi<Tion must be voluntary, just as much as the support of 
 
 >ligion by individual.^. And I maintain that it must be voluntary because a state 
 
 ever weuld give such support to religion against its will. It must be a voluntary 
 
 xpression of the ruling power, whatever that may be. In the case before ns, there 
 
 lust be an expression of the will of the people ol Great Britain through their repre- 
 
 rntaiives in tlie Imperial Parliament. The distinction must still be noticvd, that 
 
 .at which is voluni.try is not thereby necessarily optional, and that the legal support 
 
 \ the christtan church Is not 'hereby necessarily a compulsory one. The great 
 
 .-inciple, as it appears to me, is, that the gospel is to be extended, and that one if 
 
 I ^ i^< \t means to be used in that extension, is the furnishing of pecuniary resourcct. 
 
 Vithout this, no institution, however spiritual, can advance in this world. There 
 
 |iust be pecuniary resources. Now it appears to me that the great principle which 
 
 vfgulatea ^le conduct of an individual under the i(iflu'>nceof the gospel, also regulates 
 
 he conduct of ast.nte. Where the spirit of God acts on the soul, in a full degree, it 
 
 »'ill cause the person to give himself' — soul, body, moneys, lands — to the service of 
 
 iod, in whatever way bis conscience may dictate. 1 maintain that if it be the dutv 
 
 — M it certainly is—of the individual cii.istian to devote himself and all that lie 
 
 'oasessfs, on the altar of his God, wheneve." he is brought to a knowledge of the 
 
«• 
 
 «ft 
 
 truth as il id in Jesus— It is equally the bounden duty of a community, and therefore 
 the state is bound to use its resources for the same purpose. 1 do not enla-ce on this, 
 as it IS not immediately before us It is not on account of any want of faith, that we 
 disclaim the sufBciency of the voluntary principle. It is net from want of faith on 
 our part, in the power of religion upon the minds of the christians belonging to those 
 sections of the church which we represent, that we declare to cast ourstlves wholif 
 upon the voluntary principle; for I arn fully convinced that the section of the church 
 tu which I belong woulJ be us liberal in its contributions as any oilier section of the 
 church in the world. Still I mcintain ihnt, ethcient as the voluntary principle may 
 be for maintaining tho church under some circums ances, and in Hotne parts of the 
 world, it is not sufficient for evanjjelizing the whole vorld — for doing the great work 
 ^'hlcli ike church, as a whole, is bound t:) do. There are some placea-^in cities, and 
 in some counties — where the voluntary principle is exceedingly efficient. I have 
 no doubt that some think that Scotland is a country where the voluntary principle 
 has been exceedingly efficient. We say it has been so, because Scotland v \b first 
 taught by the eatablisliment principie. We have heard reference to the Apostle 
 goinj; forth and taking nothing from the Gentiles. Is not that the same principle on 
 which the Church of Christ still acts — on which the mis»ionary now goes ibrth ? If 
 the remarks of the last speaker have the slightest force against any eudowment?, . 
 th>y have equol force against all endowments. If the christian miiiiuter must 
 repudiate endowments by the state, he must repudiate endowments provided 
 by a society — both having this one great purpose — the spreading of the gospet ' 
 throughout the world. I maintain that the voluntary principle is not sufficient, 
 because there are many cir. uinstances in which a minister cannot be supported 
 by the voluntary contributions of his (lock. In the first instance, he has no flock- 
 — perhaps for years, he will have no flock that cnn do it, whalever their will - 
 may be. It has been said, '* Give us enough of the voluntary principle, and we'll do 
 what you require." Certainly, that is the pwint which laud my friends have all 
 along been urging- We o>>ject to the voluntary principlfe, because there is not 
 enough of if. It is just because there is not enough of it, that that which has beeu ■ 
 styled the voluntary principle, is in reality llie involuntary principle. It is not 
 because christians have voluntarily contributed what is r« quired, but because thejT 
 have been unwilling to do 80, that a deficiency has been felt. Still, however, thia • 
 does not come to fiie matter of principle, and it is lo the great matter of principle to - 
 wh'ch I adhere ; because it is by adherence to this principle that I maintain the • 
 truth, which I cannot and dare notiopudiate. I cannot give up this principle withoat 
 tearing the crown from the head of the Saviour, and that I will not do. Reference 
 has been made lo the early Christians, and the reputed spread of Christianity under 
 their preaching. There is no question that in 40, chiistianity was extended to every •• 
 province of the Roman empire, and even bcyoud it, but the whole land was not 
 christianized, as has been already shown. Christianity was widely extended withiu 
 a few years of the death of Christ. It was extended,' but how ? Not by the vol- • 
 untary prificiple, as that principle is understood and acted upon by the christian • 
 church of the present day, but under the peculiar circumstances of the limes, when ' 
 the greater number of those in Jui-iea who were brought to the faith, devoted their 
 whole substance, sold their lauds even, and gave them into the treasury of the Lord, 
 and then went forth lo preach the gospel. These were peculiar circumstances. 
 They knew that the land would soon be ravaged and destroyed by the Roman army, 
 mid under theee peculiar circumstances, they devoted the whole of their property to 
 the service of o gospel. These, I say, were peculiar circumstances, that are not 
 incumbent on the church of the present day. I have said already that the whole ot 
 a man's property is lo be devoted to God, but it is not in every instance to be era- 
 • ployed in paying ministers', or sending missionaries: to a very great extent, thia • 
 was the principle, although not now required. Siill it was the principle acted on 
 ki the primitive church, and this, so far as hum m insirumentalilieswero concerned, • 
 was the great secret, through means of which the gospel made such rapid proaress. 
 But observe, this was a peculiar case, which does not apply to the whole history of 
 the church, in every age. It was intended to show the vital power of Christianity ; 
 
 !t 
 
 . ■ 
 
Iffy 
 
 ^'^U 
 
 
 Md that vital power was'manifested in a alriking degree in the efli ets which resulted 
 fram it. But we are not to suppnie, although it pleated the Lord thus to ahow the 
 vital power of Christianity, in the first instance, that (he great principle for which we 
 have <contended was to remain in abeyance. I mean the principle of the aupremacy 
 of Chiist, and the subserviency of nations, of governments, and of every thing that 
 belongs to man, when brought into the church, to the great end of maintaining and 
 spreading the gospel. It was not necest^ary that the same circumstances should 
 contiaue ihroughout the entire history of the world. There was no complaint of 
 want of funds amongst the primitive christianfc for the reason I have explained. 
 Mentioa has been made of the p oper amount of salary that a minister should receive, 
 and three timen the average income ol the members of his congregation has been 
 named aa that amount. In many iuGiances, probably, a great deal less than that 
 would be considered a suitable maintenance, but this, I consider, has nothing to do 
 with the questio'i before us. The question is, whether the voluntary principle has 
 Christ's exprrea sanction as the principle on which the pecuniary support of his 
 church should rest, and whether it has proved adequate to all the necessities that 
 have occurred. There is no doubt that Christ requires that men should give their 
 souls, and bodies, and moneys, and every thing else, to his service ; but no statement 
 hasheen adduced f-"m scripture to show that Christ gave his express sanction to 
 thia voluntary principle, as the exclusive principle for the pecuniary support of the 
 church. No scriptural statement has been adduced that bears directly on this point. 
 I will again mention one necessity which exists, and that is the necessity of extend- 
 ing the church to heathen lands — where the voluntary principle (always keeping in 
 view the distinction 1 have made) is not sufficient for the maintenance and furtherance 
 S of the gospel' Taking the voluntary principle in the view which 1 hold to be eound 
 '■ —that governments and individuals are under law to Christ, and bound to contribute 
 >;. of their substance for the furtherance of his gospel — and then I would admit most 
 ; cheerfully that it is sufficient. But as J presume that this is not the principle upheld 
 en the other side, it docf seem to me that there is something wanting in that voluntary 
 principle to which they refer. Reference was made in the forenoon to America, and 
 without going back to that part of our discussion, 1 would state niost distinctly that 
 I do not consider America a fair field for affording satisfactory testimony concerning 
 ' the voluntary pri.'.ciple. There has not been sufficient time lo test it. Moieover, 
 ., it ought to be directly borne in mind that America did not start on the voluntary 
 principle ; and extensive state endowments of churchea still exist there. The en- 
 dowment of a single church in Sew York is greater than ail the clergy resefves of 
 Canada. Another fact is to be remembered, that throughc ut a great number, if not 
 all the states of the American union, there are additional funds which are partly 
 '^ employed in the teaching of religion. That 1 consider is most distinctly an endow ' 
 i Rient of religion. Another fact stated by Baird|in his work on ** Religion in 
 America," is, that a very great number of Congregational churches in the New 
 England States are state churches, upheld as such by the law ; contributions being 
 levied by law for the support of those churches. Now keeping these things in view, 
 how ean America be pointed to as a field where the voluntary principle has had free 
 „ scope? There is certainly a great deal of voluntary service rendered to the cause 
 , of the gospel in the United States, but I do not admit that that is the only mearM 
 upon which the gospel there depends for pccunrary support. I think I must have 
 ^ been mistaken on one occasion, if 1 were understood to say that churches could do 
 ,. perfectly well without establishments. [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. W. Gii.MORE— In reference to the subject of tithe, I again state that th<re 
 were no civil exactions under theformer economy. Mr. Crony n has endeavored 
 to prove, that in primitive times there was an insufficiency in the voluntary 
 principle because a bishop, laboring in a place, did not convert all the peopfc 
 that were there. 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn — I referred to Moshiem, to show that at the commencement of 
 t'le fourth century, there were " an incredible number of persons who adhere<i to 
 tho worship ol" the gods." , ■.-■y ■■ - "-i- .-.-.::..-■ 
 
i^ 
 
 4T 
 
 Rev. W. GiLMORK— All I intended to eay was, that an endowment could have 
 done no more than send a Bishop there to latror, and that this was done by the 
 voluntary nrinclple. The historical fact proves no more. Again, it has been 
 represented, that the voluntary principle had made comparatively little progress in 
 the world, as far down as the time orCoastanline. 1 referred to Pliny, whose state- 
 ment has not been touched. I quote from memory, but 1 think he say's.when writing 
 10 Trajan— "The christian religion hasenier.'d thecltieH, the villages, the towns, 
 and the hamlets ; the very temples are forsaken, and there are no more sacrifices," 
 or. " the sacrifices are not now purchased as they were lormerly,"— I forget 
 which. This was in 107 or 1 10, Here wt see, then, that at that time, and in 
 that part of the country, the voluntary principle had done wonders. And did not 
 Tertullian, in his "Apology" say — 'Were we to refer from your empire, we 
 should leave a mighty chasm in the midst of you 1"— showing that the voluntary 
 
 firlnciple had indeed done wonders at that time. The rev, gentleman who spok« 
 ast seems to be at a loss as to what we mean by the voluntary principle. Wo 
 mean this— that a man may give all his property, if he choose, or whatever pro- 
 portion he pleases, to the support of the gospel ; only he is not forced to do so. 
 We do not think that that contribution must be confined to the church in which 
 he is a member, but that it may be extended to others. Our friend seems to be 
 at a very great loss to understand how a man can possibly give beyohd the limittt 
 of thn church where he labors. Now the Apostle says —" Let them who are 
 taught communicate to him that teacheth in all good things." That was said of 
 an individual, teaching in a pait<cular congregation ; and in that particular con- 
 gregation, the taught are to comn>'inicaie with him of all good things — that is 
 for his temporal support. Then tht Apostle says further, when writing to the 
 Phillippians, — ' Now, ye Phillippia-'s, know also, that in the beginning of the 
 gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me, as 
 concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even i.i Thessalonica ye sent 
 once and again unto my necessity," Now here are the Phillippians, not only 
 contributing to the support of the individual laboring amongst them, but sending 
 help to the Apostle when far from them — all on the voluntary principle. And 
 now as to the voluntary principle in modern times. It must be remembered that 
 it labored under a paralysis for a thousand years, and even now, when the volun- 
 taries are greatly enfeebled, and only exerting themselves up into health, volun- 
 taryism has done, and is doing wonders. And what but the compulsory system 
 kept us under this paralysis 1 For about 200 or 300 yeais \«4e began to quiver 
 with life, and to see, however dimly, the light; and our forefathers, in striving to 
 gain the full degree of life and health, were often incarcerated in prisons, and 
 hunted by dragoons, at the instance of the established church. Still they went 
 on— still the voluntary principle struggled and lived. Look at its operation among 
 the non-conformists in England at the present day. Do we not find that the sup- 
 plies ot the dissenting churches in England overtake the half of the population 1 
 Look again at the Methodists, when they came forth, and threw themselves onjthc 
 voluntary principle : did it not work wonders in spreading their religion 1 Look 
 still more recently at the time when the tev. Doctor before us, (Dr. Burns,) and 
 his colleagues followed the example. True, they have scarcely shaken the para- 
 lysis off so completely as we have done, but still what have they accomplished 'J 
 The Free Church of Scotland now furnishes a minister for every 938 hearers. 
 There are 657,255 individuals connected with the Free Church, and they have 
 700 ministers ; making the division 938 tor each of their congregations. Refer- 
 ence has been made to Baird, and on this point I beg to correct the last speaker. 
 There has been no endowment in any of the States since 1831. The last endow- 
 ment was withdrawn then. At that time, in four States, there was a minister on 
 the average, to ever" 925 individuals. Again, in Scotland, in 1835, there was a 
 minister to every 1340 people, while in the United States there was one to every 
 1050. Again, taking the newer States further west, which have ben always re- 
 presented" as ill supplied, (and ill-supplied because the voluntary principle only 
 was made to bear on them)— Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Alabama, Mississippi, 
 
 1. 
 
 m 
 
48 
 
 
 Missouri, and others— there was a minister to efery 1316 people. It is plain, 
 Ihen, thaithe United Slates, with nothing but the voluntary principle to reljr upon 
 was better supplied spiritually, than Scotland, where a state church ezislft I 
 find a statement on this subject in Heed and Matheson's '• Narrative :" 
 ♦'In Vermont and New Hampshire, there were not only state enactments, bu* 
 provisions of land in fnvor ot the same and similar obiects. Each Township 
 had an annual grant of 300 acres. This estate was to benefit equally four par- 
 ties: the churc'i— the school— the society for promoting christian knowledge — 
 and the first minister. The first minifcter was deemed a proprietor; and ho 
 could w«ll away his portion to his family or frienda. It was. In fact, a hanui 
 ^ to induce a person to encounter the first diflicully of aeitling; and it usually 
 oiiracted the least worthy to the spot. The one-fourth originally meant for tlxe 
 permament uses of the church, with its other privilej^es, remained, and the 
 •'.hurch languished in the midst of its indulgencies. It is remarkable that ihe 
 'desolations' of these districts, which a Scotch writer has magnified, to illua- 
 trate the inefliciency of the voluntary principle, are the very desolations which 
 were created by the compulsory and stale methjils on which 1 am adverting." 
 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 llev. B. Cronyn— I shall supply what the rev. gentleman said I omitted on the 
 former occasion. He said I did not prove that there was any compulsion to lia 
 enaployed concerning the t'lhcs under the law. 
 
 Rev. W. GiLMOHE — By Jhe civil magistrate. 
 
 Rev. B. CnoNYN— By the hand of the executioner. Will that answer as vein 
 Though certainly he was not a veryclvii magistrate. However, we know that 
 offering's were lobe presented to the temple — were to be brought in order that ttie 
 priests might have their portion. I will read to you the law concerning this as it 
 is given in Leviticus, c. 17 : " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unlo 
 Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all tie children of Israel, and say unto them 
 this is the thing v/hich the Lord hath com..,anded, .saying, what man soever there 
 be of the House of Israel that killeth an o.\, or Iamb, or goat, in the camp, or that 
 killetn it out of the camp, and bringcth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of 
 the congregation to offer an offering unto the Lord, blood shall be imputed unto 
 that man ; he hath shed blood ; and that man shall be cut off from among hia 
 p.'ople." One chief reason why they were thus enjoined to biing all beasts to the 
 t.Mnpie, was thafthe priest had a particular portion of every victim as his share, 
 on which to live. The priests were to live by the altar. The last gentleman 
 said, that there were free will oflerings, but, in fact, they v/ere the offerings which 
 they were commanded to make. And mark! when a person did not bring tha 
 victim to the altar, which he had slain elsewhere, and thus robbed the priesthov,d 
 the blood was to be upon him, and he was cut ofi" from the land. It is the sarac 
 command as existed in reference to the Sabbath. Those who broke it were to Lc 
 stoned with stones, till ibey died. That is a compulsory enactment, clearly stc- 
 ting, that when they refused to bring llieir offering to the altar, that the priest* 
 might have their portion of it, they »vare to be punished, even with death. Com- 
 ing back to the subject more immediately before us, I may say that [ am in pos- 
 session of a few st;".i.slics with reference to the voluntary system, and I am some- 
 what surprisad at the statistics that have been read, I can't account for them — 
 they are so exceedingly different from what I have furnished myself with from 
 various parties. But before proceeding to this point, we must consider that thero 
 are two things that go under the name of volunta^yisn^, in the minds ot difiereBi 
 |)eople. There is what the great and learned Dr. Ctialmers called "free trade 
 in religion," and there is the voluntary principle. The free trade system is that 
 which these gentlemen appear to advocate— that is, to let the demand regulate the 
 supply. That is, when ungodly men demand reli;;,ion, we'll give it, not till then. 
 When a man whose carnal mind is enmity against God, demands religion, we'll 
 bring it to him/ Dr. Chalmers has well denounced this system, and I would 
 ji,3Commend thos6 gentlemen to study what he says on the subject. The voluA- 
 
49 
 
 tary principle again, is that which includes endowments— voluntary giA*. There 
 is no church in the world that has given voluntary endowments equal to the 
 Church of England. There are the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 
 Foreign parts, with £100,000 a year, and the Christian Knowledge Society, with 
 the same income— both contributed altogether by the church, and 1 believe that 
 nine-tenths of the funds of the Bible Society are contributed by churchmen; the 
 (Jhurch Missionary Society is supported altogether by them; and the London 
 Missionary Society derives large sums from the same source. We do not dis- 
 claim voluntaryism, then, but we take it as supplementary to our system, in 
 this country we have no tithes by compulsion. No man is here obliged to pay 
 lor another man's religion. A pious King, in the exercise of that right which he 
 assuredly possessed, recommended his parliament to give a certain grant. The 
 parliament, representing the people of Lngland— made that grant ; and it is that 
 jrrant which we wish to have retained. Let us not go so wide from the mark, 
 then, as to talk about tithes in Ireland, the massacre at Rathcomac, and so Ibrih, 
 Let us keep to facts, and I will read you what was said by the late Dr. Dwight, 
 an American Presbyterian, who ought to be considered a good authority : 
 
 •' Further, the rapid decrease in the number of ministers, compared with the 
 population, is shewn. In 1753, in New England, there was one minister for 
 every 628 persons. In 180G, in the United States, there was not one well-educa- 
 ted minister to 6,000 souls. But in many cases where churches formerly 
 existed, they are no longer to be found. The members are dispersed, the 
 records gone— not a vestige of the church to be found." "It is quite clear 
 the example of America can never be again quoted as a proof of the succc&s 
 of the volu«tary system." 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gilmore— What is the date of that? 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn — 1806. I will now give a statement of a later date. The 
 American Tract Society, in their Report lor 1833, say : " It is estimated by those 
 who have the best means of judging, that not far from five millions ol our popu- 
 lation are now unblessed with the means ol grace." The American Tract 
 Society surely knew what they were writing about. Yet this is their statement 
 in 1833. You read statistics of 1835. There must have been tremendous energy 
 manifested by the voluntary system in these two years! The Bishop of Ohio, 
 has, however, made statements which bear out those which I have read. Now 
 these are statistics which we have from good sources with regard to the voluntary 
 system in the States. Can we say that it is an efficient system 1 thai it is compe- 
 tent to cover the whole land with the ministrations of the gospell It is most 
 sadly deficient. As to the free trade in religion — the principle that the demand 
 is to regulate the supply — we know thai it will never bring the gospel to those 
 who most stand in need of it. The man who desires the gospel has made a great 
 step towards obtaining the blessings of it. The man who has made this first 
 ^tep, can only be considered as doing so under the influence of God's Holy Spirit ; 
 but the man who desires it not — who has no knowledge of Christ, and cares not 
 for him — should have the gospel brought to him, and its obligations pressed upon 
 him. The free trade system cannot do it. With all your energ}'— and we give 
 you credit for great energy and perseverance — It is impossible that under the tree 
 trade system, the ministrations of religion can be extended to those who have 
 .most need of it. It is for the poor of the land that the state should interfere. 
 The rich can obtain lor themselves the ministrations of the gospel. But the poor 
 of the land should have the gospel preached to them, and we say that the state 
 should provide the means of bringing home the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 10 every man and heart in the country. 
 
 Rev. J. GiLMORE I may be allowed to say that the authorities for my statistiois 
 are Dr. Baird, Baptist Noel, and Reid and Matheson. 
 
 Rev. J, GuNDRY — I would suggest that it is highly uesirable that there should 
 be an extension of time on this proposition, in order that the voluntary system 
 
 i 
 
 
"^^^^ 
 
 50 
 
 4iay be ihoioughly disciused. All of ua miut have felt Ihat the subject is yet i'ar 
 from being exhausted. 
 
 Rev. F. Evans— Our number, you see, is limited, while our opponenis are 
 much more numerous. Besides, Mr. Bettridge and Mr. Cronyn are unwell. 
 
 Rev. B. CRONTN—ToraorroMT, if we are physically able, we will endeavor ta 
 oblige you. 
 
 [An adjaurument then took plaa until tkt following morning at nint t^clttk ; the 
 DoTohgy having ken pretionsly sung by the meeting] 
 
 
 • •^.-'5 
 

 
 
 
 
 ' '/' ' ■'■'-" .' ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ; -■/,-, 
 
 •■nv 
 
 
 
 
 K :^' ' 
 
 
 ;/■ • -%:-i^*,i' " 
 
 ** k 
 
 1 • 
 
 
 
 ' ." . - ' , . ^ 
 
 ,y '"' 
 
 ':/::':'-. ^ 
 
 * '' 
 
 
 '■'■'■ ' '"'■ ''*■ " 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ .'.1.. 
 
 * 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 i'- ' " .';*'!;■ 
 
 ' >■ , 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 _; .. ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 5 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 . " w * 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 '. * 
 
 
 1 
 
 , .• 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ■> k 
 
 . ."' , ,^ 
 
 * ■' 
 
 Si • 
 
 • 
 
 
 ?f: 
 
'.**;,,-• iv» 
 
 E R R A T Jl. 
 
 ] From foot of Page 54 go to top ol Page 68. 
 (I « ill 57 (I « •< 5p. 
 
 _« it " 58 go back to Pa^e 65, 
 
 ^ 
 
 '?- 't 
 
 •: 1. 
 
 I ii 
 
SECOND DAY. 
 
 1^ proceedings were commenctd at half past nine o^clo^, vnih prai/er 
 by the Rev. F. Evans, and Rev. Mr. Gilmore. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Bdrns said— There is a matter which I would snbrak to you, Mr* 
 CJhairman, and the tneeting, in regard to the time allotted to each speaker. In 
 ihe discussion of yesterday, it was a matter of comparatively small moment, be- 
 cause the time was principally occupied with reasoning and argument. But 
 to-day, on the first and second points of discussion, a great part of it must be 
 occupied in examining and reading documents, and commenting upon them. 
 Now, twenty minutes are really too little for an opening speech, whicn from the 
 nature of the subjects, would require a pretty full review of each topic ; and I 
 therefore submit that it is highly desirable that we should have an hour each. 
 
 Hev. F. Evans — I am quite aware of the inconvenience which in some mea- 
 sure attends the restrictions as to time which have been agreed upon, but on 
 balancing the whole affair, I think there is a decided preponderance of reason in 
 favor of shor< time, especially when we consider that* our proceedings are to be 
 reported and exfensively circulated. People will not read lengthy pamphlets aid 
 documents ; and though an addition of ten minutes to the time o^ each speaker 
 might inconvenience us very little now, it would be found greatly to diminish 
 the chances of a very wide circulation of what is said. We have documents to 
 read as well as the other party, but we do not therefore ask for any addition to 
 •ur time. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burns — Both parties are equally incerested in having justice done to 
 the documents ; and to run through them, post haste, in order to bring them within 
 twenty minutes, is murdering the argument. 1 again, propose, Mr. Chairman, 
 thai you give us half an hour to open a proposition, and allow ten minutes to 
 i.»nlv. 
 
 Chairman— Such a proceeding requires the consent of all parties. There is 
 one compromise of which you can avail yourself, and that s to take the twenty 
 minutes and the ten minutes together, instead of on two occasions. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burns — I decline accepting that., unless it be agreed to by all. 
 Chairman — We must proceed then, as usual. The proposition which is next 
 to be maintained on the voluntary side, is as follows : 
 
 4— That the term "Protestant Clergy," used in the Imperial Statute of 1791, must hare been 
 used in contradistinction to Roman Cathohc and not intended to be restricted in its 
 application to the Clergv of the English Church. That the term " Protestant C'-n-gT," 
 being intended to exclude Roman Cathol s only, the settlement made by 3 ana 4 Vic., 
 ■was an act of injustice, and so far from be\ng a compromise, was a fraud upon those who 
 were not asserting parties to the arrangement. 
 
 J. RoAF I maintain the proposition which has now been read. In doing 
 
 ill, in the first place, offer a tew reasons for the opinion, thai the phrase 
 stant clergy" used in the Imperial Statute of 1791, was not intended to 
 
 Rer 
 so, I w 
 
 "Protestant — .^^ 
 
 apply exclusively to the Church of England, but was intended to be used in con- 
 txadistinction to Roman Catholic. I will just refer to the words of the act which 
 is now before me. In it we find that there are clauses which relate to the reser- 
 vation of lands for the support of a protestant clergy ; there are clauses further 
 on, relating to the establishment of Rectories, and the appointment of rectors. 
 Ih these two cases, there is a '-tudied difference in the phraseology employed with 
 
 
 I' 
 
 t' 
 
 r 
 
 I: 
 
 ;• • t ■ 
 
 1 !■ 
 11 
 
 ■ I 
 urn 
 
 ;; ■ i. 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 'i ' ' 
 
 
 
 
 f , 
 
 11 
 
 
 fi 
 
 i : 
 
 J 
 
 i. 
 
KS 
 
 m^ 
 
 m 
 
 64 
 
 regard to the parties interested. When the Reserves are spoken of, the phrase 
 is uniformly "Protestant clergy." When the Rectories are referred to, it i» 
 requisite tj name a particular class of men to be appointed as rectors. Then, 
 there is no generality at all — there is a specific appellation given ; a particular 
 clase are selected, and they are the " Clergy of the Church of Englana." Upon 
 that fact I found an argument that there was intended to be a difference of i^ea 
 conveyed by the phrases which have been thus studiously changed. With re- 
 sard to the expression, " a protestant clergy," the idea is not to be taken which 
 nasbeen propagated by friends of the gentlemen opposite — that the Legislature 
 of England could refer only to the established clergy ot England, or, as they are 
 frequently termed, the established clergy of the Empire. Then the natural and 
 
 firoper Tjnraseology would have been, "the Clergy." If only the ministers be- 
 onging; to the Church of England were in the eye of the Legislature and the 
 law, th3 clergy, they would have been spoken of as " the clergy," If, instead of 
 that, the term "protestant clergy" was used, it impli'^d an admission that there 
 •was another clergy than the protestant — there was the Roman Catholic. The 
 Roman Catholic priesthood, therefore, constituted a clergy in the view of the 
 Legislature. For instance, if when I came to Simcoe, I had heard a gentleman 
 spoken cf as " the protestant rector," I should have understood that there was a 
 Roman Catholic rector. You never hear of " a protestant rector," because it is 
 understood that there is but one rector. The word protestant is never introduced. 
 .If there had been the idea of a T-omau Catholic rector, as well as the Protestant 
 rector, then the phrase would have been introduced to designate one party from 
 Jhe other. The Legislature iu 1791 said, " a Protestant Clergy ;" by that ad- 
 mitting that there was a Roman Catholic Clergy. When they speak of Protes- 
 tant Clergy, what did they say 1 Not "the Protestant Clergy," but "a Protes- 
 tant Clergy." They used an indefinte article for an indefinite thing. Had only 
 one clergy been intended, they would have said " the Protestant Clergy,'' but 
 they said, "a Protestant Clergy" — Uius shov/ing that there were several bodies 
 of clergy. WJien, afterwards, it is necessary to be more specific, in regard to the 
 class whom the Governors are lo appoint to the Rectories the Legislature immg, 
 diateiy designate a particular class — the Clergy of the Church of England. 
 iNow as to the ground on which I base the proposition. I found it, in the first 
 place, upon the opinion that the phrase " Protestant Clergy" was not intended to 
 apply to any one class of Clergy, but was intended to leave open room for the 
 appropriation of the Reserves to any who might come afterwards, in the view of 
 ijhe Legislature, under that description. I foui.d it, in the second place, upon the 
 fact that this view of the case has been drawn by the most eminent men in En- 
 gland; and to the opinions of some of them I will now refer. Writing in the 
 nam; and in behali of his Majesty, the Secretary of State, Lord Glenelg thus 
 wrote to Sir Francis Bond Head, on tho 5th Dec, 1835 : 
 
 *^It is noi difficult to perceive the reasons which induced Parliament, in 1791, to 
 
 connect with a reservation of land for ecclesiastical purposes, the special dele- 
 
 ^ gation to the Council and Assembly of the right to vary that provision bv any 
 
 i^ bill, which being reserved for the signification of his Majesty's pleasure, should 
 
 . be communicated to both Honses of parliament, for six weeks before that deci- 
 
 ' sion was pronounced. Remembering, it should seem, how fertile a source of 
 
 controversy ecclesiastical endowments had supplied throughout a large part of 
 
 the christian world, and how impossible it was to foretell with precision what 
 
 'I might be the prevailing opinions and feelings of the Canadians on this subject, 
 
 "' at a future period, Parliament at once secured the means of making a syste- 
 
 ' matic provision for a protestant clergy, and took full precaution against the 
 
 eventual inaptit ide of that system to the more advanced stages of a society 
 
 then in its infant state, and of which no human foresight could divine the 
 
 •more mature and sjettled judgment." 
 
 Lord Glenelg here saj's deliberately, that it was intended to make a reserve of 
 lands, but afterwards to select the parlies to whom those lands could be given 5 
 
 
55 
 
 These are extracts frcm the opinion of the Judges of England— the highc^^t 
 lauthorities on a point of law in tne woriu. Referring to this opinion, Lord John 
 Jlussell thus spoke iu the House of Commons, on the 6th July, 1810: 
 
 "''The proposition is founded on the opinion of the Judges, given in the other 
 House of Parliament, with respect to the clergy reserves. That opinion re- 
 cognizes the right on the part of the Church of England, and also recognize* 
 the right on the part ot the Church of Scotland, to shares in those reserve;? ; 
 and by words which I need not quote, virtually admitf the terms, " Christians 
 of other denominations," as entitling them likewise to share according to the 
 Act of Parliament of 1791, in the proceeds of such reserves." 
 
 So much for authority from these parties. I take other ground. I shall ad- 
 vance this opinion — that there is among the various bodies of Protestant minis- 
 ters no one class of gentlemen so little entitled to the phrase " Protestant clergy,"' 
 as those of that church to which our brethren on the opposite side belong. I do 
 not mean to rest upon a similarity between that church and the church of Rome, 
 which does not belong to any of us. I rest upon this fact . that it is the common 
 argument in behalf of the Church of England, that they acquire, the validity of 
 their orders, and the efficacy of their sacraments, through the Church of Rome. 
 
 Rev. W. Bettridge. — This is rather beside the question. We are not now dis- 
 cussing the doctrine of Apostolic succession. 
 
 Mr. J. RoAF— I am rot saying a word about Apostolic succession. I am 
 saying that the argument which the bulk of these gentlemen — Bishops and others 
 — use is, that their church has claims a jainst us all (whom they call dissenters, )be- 
 because they got the validityof their orders through the Church of Rome Not only 
 so,Dut what is their rule 1 A Presbyterian Clergyman who becomes connected with 
 the Church of England must be re-ordaiued — his present ordination goes for noth- 
 ing. But let a Roman Catholic priest be convertad, and he is not re-ordained — His 
 present ordination is held to be valid. Is not there affiliation there'? Isthatprotesta- 
 lionl Does that church protest against the other " It does not. There is no protest 
 about it. It is no argument on behalf of the ( 'hurch of England that they are 
 a reformed Catholic Church— not a Protestant Church. I tLny that the Church 
 of England does protest against the ess ial principles of the Church of Rome. 
 They depend upon them — their orders no through them — the validity of theii 
 sacraments comes through them. Therelore, if there be a class of cl r; , at is 
 not a Protestant clergy, that is the class. There is another part of my pn posi- 
 tion. It is that "The settlement made by 3 t&. i Vic, was fin act of gross 
 injustice, and so far from being a compromise, was a f: lud upon t )«;e sects who 
 Trere not assenting parties to the arrangement." If these gentlemen were not the 
 Protestant clergy, and they took all the clergy reserves themselves, froi^ 1701 to 
 1840, they defrauded all other denominations of their share As honest jnen. 
 •then, they ought to pay it back; for they took it under the pr^^i iice of being the 
 *' Protestant clergy." I deny that the settlement was acompr- inise. A compro- 
 mise of whatl They never had the clergy reserves in their hards. They Avere 
 never entitled to them. These were reserves not grants. A providr-d property, 
 kept in hand for a given use or a given party, is not made a vested ght. That 
 ■wonderful book, the Bible, has a passage that bears on this. Tw individuals in 
 the first christian times, adopted the then general course ot devoi mg or dedicating 
 the bulk of their property to religion. They afterwards faltered in their purpose 
 and what then was tneir position 1 An Apostle said to them, " While it remain- 
 ed was it not lliine own, and after it was sold, was it net in thine power V They 
 sinned in the matter by lying, and not by robbery or sacrilege. So while the 
 Clergy reserves remained, were they not the government's own 1 and when they 
 were sold, were they not still in their power"? The government have these re- 
 serves in their hands, and hold them against a day when they may be wanted. 
 Talk about vested rights in the case, and about making a compromise ! Where 
 wa« the vested right 7 They had no deed lor them. If I were to sell you a lot 
 
 I 
 ir 
 
 ■: h 
 
56 
 
 
 Mi 
 
 W -i 
 
 :iv:":iS; 
 
 o( land, and vrcrc to put into the deed that I might "vary or repeal it" when ( 
 liked, what would it be worth 1 v*'ho would give anything for such a title 1" Yet 
 that was the kind of deed which these gentlemen got : a deed by which the do- 
 nors might " vary or repeal" that very act when they pleased. We, then, are at 
 perfect libeity to vary or rencal that act DOW. Hear what Lord Goderich said t» 
 Sir J. Colborne, Nov. 21, io3l : > ' •• , .(.»k'.' . V- ;,,,■: i ,• .. .! 
 
 " It is sufficient to repeat that his Majesty's government have addsed the abandon- 
 ment of the 'eserves, for the simple reason that after 40 years, they have been 
 found not to answer the expectations entertained at the time the system was 
 established, but have entailed a heavy burden upon the Province, without pro- 
 ducing any corresponding advantage." 
 
 This was said by the very party that gave the reserves. Not only so, but a 
 dratt of a bill was actually sent out by Lord Goderich to Sir John Colborne, in 
 1831, for adoption by the Legislature of this Provihce. In this bill it was pro- 
 vided — 
 
 "That all the lands heretofore appropriated within the Province for the si.pporl 
 and maintenance of a Protestant clergy, now remaining unsold, shall be, and 
 the same are hereby declared to be vested in his Majesty, his heirs, successors, 
 &c., as of his and their original estate, absolutely discharged from all trust for 
 or for the benefit of a Protestant clergy, and of end trom all and every the 
 claims and demands of such clergy upon ar J In respect of the same." 
 
 The very party that is said to have given these reserves, actually proposed 
 that in this country we should pass an act conveying them back. Did the Impe- 
 rial government conceive that these gentlemen have a vested right 1 By no 
 means. Vested means realized, in distinction from contingent or uncertain, and 
 who therefore can say, that the clergy of the Church of England have anything 
 like a vested right/? Again — there was no compromise in the settlement for this 
 reason — we were not there to compromise with them. The people of Canada 
 had been protesting against the whole system, and they sent home an Act for the 
 purpose of effecting an arrangement; but the Archbisnop and the Bishops of the 
 Church of England proposed a new arrangement, mainly in favor of themselves 
 ail ■ this is what we are asked to call a compromise! Why, if there is to be a 
 settlement, both parties ought to be 'Iiere. There was only one party there, 
 however, and they obtained the existing eettlement, which they call a final settle- 
 ment; just as though an Act of Parliament passed in any session, could be final. 
 We know that acts of parliament are final only till they are done away with. 
 They are final till the next year, whtn the Legislature may reverse them. That 
 is the finality of acts of parliament, and that is the only finality that is in this 
 so-called settlement. I maintain that there is no final settlement where there in 
 W)ong. Providence forbids any final settlement where there is injustice. There 
 is wrong, because in the first place, these gem men had all the reserves to them- 
 selves ; and because under the settlement of Ih 10, a large portion still remains in 
 their hands, while it is proposed to divide a shied amongst r.s. We come in for 
 a part under the settlement of 1840, bot all that was given before that, is kept 
 by these two favored churches. No — we have no interest in these reserves. 
 They had acquired an mterest in them before that period. We have no right, 
 according to this settlement, but that of humbly petitioning the Governor General 
 or Mr. Baldwin, or Mr. Hincks, and asking that a small modicum may be given 
 to us. The proposition says rightly then, that the settlement " was a fraud upon 
 those sects who were not assenting pariies to the arrangement," ,-;, j. , ,^j; , i 
 
 Rev. W. Bettridoe — Before I proceed with my observat jUs, I beg to express 
 my deep regret that this proposition was ever assented to, because I think that 
 any discussion upon the provisions of the Act of Parliani< nt of 1791, after the 
 act of 1840, had passed. Such a discussion can only tend at best to excite un- 
 pleasant feelings, and to give rise to not very courteous expressions. As to what 
 the gentleman who has just sat down has said with respect to the protestantism of 
 
#7 
 
 the Church of England, I can leave it to the decision of history ; only asking 
 where his church would have been without the Protestant Church of Englandl 
 I'll say no more on that point, but will proceed, and do so with great and unfeign- 
 td r^^grei— to notice the right of the Church of fclngland, antecedent to the Act of 
 1810. To those members of the Church of Scotland or of other denominations, 
 who may be here, I must again repeat my unfeigned regret that this has been 
 made a matter of public discussion. I am forced on to the ground, but being 
 there, will of course occupy it. We |have to say, whether the statute of 1791 , 
 had reference exclusivoiy to the Church of England. I say it had, and shall en- 
 deavor to prove my position by referring to documents which now exist, and 
 which had their existence at the period immediately connected wiih that when 
 this act was passed. I suppose it will be admitted that persons who lived at the 
 time— ministers of state— a.id those who were the framers of this act — ma} be 
 considered the persons most likely to understand the entire object and character 
 iff it. I will at onci refer to thesu documents, premising that I got many of 
 them myself when in England, several years ago, from the papers of Governor 
 Simcoe, the first Governor of Upper Canada, and in whose time the act of 1791 
 was passed. Governor Simcoe, writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dec. 
 30, 1790, pointed out the niecessity of " giving due support to that church estab- 
 lishment" — that is, the Established Church ot England — which he considereft 
 " necessary to promot-j the national religion." In this letter, he regarded •' the 
 establishment of episcopacy in Upper Canada" as "absolutely necessary in any 
 CKtensive colony which this country means to preserve." Wntiug to Mr. Secre- 
 tary Dundas, June 2, 1791, Governor Simcoe again said : 
 
 " I hold it to be indispensably necessary that a Bishop should be immediately 
 established in Upper Canada. " At this very moment we see Episco- 
 pacy happily introduced, and introducing, into all the United States; nor 
 in Parliament in the Canada bill, have we seen any exception taken ta 
 the episcopal function, but to the admission of the Bishop to a seat in the 
 Legislative Council, which, it is to be hoped, while there is an establishment, 
 tiie wisdom of this country will always insist npon." 
 
 Again, Governor Simcoe said: 
 
 " In regard to the Episcopal Establishment, it is impossible for me to be more an.^- 
 iousthat such an arrangement should take place, than I have uniformly showa 
 myself to be, and that I firmly believe the present to be the critical moment ia 
 which that system so ' iterwoven and connected with the monarchical foundJi- 
 tion ot our government may be productive of the most permament and Exten- 
 sive benefits in preserving the conneccion between Great Britain and her Co- 
 lonies." 
 
 Again, Mr. Secretary Dundas, writing to Lord Dorchester, 16th September, 
 1791, said 
 
 " As there does not, at present, appear to be sufficient provision for the support ot 
 the Protestant clergy, either in Upper Canada or Lower Canada, the collection 
 oC tithes has, under the act of the present year, been suffered to continue But 
 your Lordship will understand that it is not wished lo continue this burden 
 longer than is necessary tor the competent provision of the clergy. If, there- 
 fore, the proprietors of lands, liable to the payment of tithes, shall be induced 
 to concur with your Lordship's recommendation, in providing a sufficient fund 
 for clearing the reserved lands, and for building parsonage houses on the seve- 
 ral parsonages, which may be endowed under the Act of the last session of 
 Parliament, and at the same time provide an intermediate fund for C\e main- 
 tenance of the clergy, during the period that will be required for the purpose 
 of so clearing these reserved lands, the obligation of tithes may then cease." 
 
 Governor Simcoe, in a letter to Mr. Bond, (our Charge d'Aflfaires at WasU. 
 kigton,) May 7th, 1793, said ; 
 
59 
 
 
 ¥V 
 
 a: 
 
 
 If 4 
 
 because it could not at that period be decided what could He the prevalent opi- 
 nions and feelings of the Canadians, and because it was foreseen that there 
 would be here, as elsewhere, strife occasioned by ecclesiastical endowmenis. — 
 The idea is most broadly put forth, that no individual class of clergy were in- 
 tended as the " Protestant clergy," for whom the reserves were set apart. I will 
 go a little further. When this question of the reserves arose in Canada, it was 
 on the petition of the Niagara Presbyterian Congregation to share in the re- 
 serves. That was referred home, and the Attorney and Solicitor General were 
 requested to say whether the Scotch clergy could come under the description, 
 " Protestant clergy." They said, " Upon the statute book, the Church of Scot- 
 land is ;nentioned as " Protestant clergy." Now on the statute book of Cana- 
 da, not only the English clergy, but the clergy of other Protestant denominations 
 are rpoognized. In the marriage Act, for instance, there is a long list of sects, 
 the clergy of whom are recognized by law ; and the same occurs in several other 
 acts. Here, then, are "Protestant clergy" in the sense of the law. These 
 " Protestant clergy," upon the principle laid down by the Attornev and Solicitor 
 General, are entitled to seek part of the clergy reserves. When the act of 1839 
 1840 was referred home irom this country, it went to the House of Lords, by 
 whom a reference was made to the Judges to ascertain who were meant by the 
 term " Protestant clergy*' to see whether, as has been repeatedly asserted, the 
 term comprehended only one class, and that the class who subscribe to the 39 
 articles oi the Church of England. On the 4th May, 1840, the Lord Chief Jus_ 
 tice of the Court of Common Pleas, delivered the unanimous opinion of the 
 Judges on the question, as follows: 
 
 " My Lords — On the part of her Majesty's Judges, I have the honor to represent 
 
 "to your Lordships, that the Judges of England, with the exception of Lord 
 
 . Denman and Lord Abinger, have met together in Serjeant's Inn, for the 
 
 !, purpose of taking into consideration the several questions which your Lord- 
 ships have been pleased to propose to us; and that after discussion upon the 
 subject, and deliberation, we have agreed unanimously upon the answers to b« 
 returned to those several questions, as follows: 
 
 '• In answer to the first question, we are all of opinion that the words, •' a Pro- 
 testant clergy/' in the statue 31, Geo. Ill, ca,p. 83, are large enough to include 
 . .and that they do include, other clergy than those of the Church of England 
 ^j and Protestant Bishops, priests and deacons who have received episcopal ordi- 
 nation. 
 
 *' For those words which are first to be met with in the statute 14, Geo. Ill, cap. 
 
 83, (recited in the act now under consideration) appear to us, loth in their 
 '- natural force and meaning, and still more from the context of the clauses in 
 - .which they are found, to be there used to designate and intend a clergy oppos- 
 ' edin doctrine and discipline to the Church of Rome, and rather to aim at the 
 
 encouragement of the Protestant religion, in opposition to the Romish Church, 
 '^ than to point exclusively to the Clergy oi the Church of England. And when 
 *' your Lordships desire the Judges to state if any other clergy are included, what 
 • other 1 We .answer that it appears to us that the clergy of the Established 
 ' Church of Scotland do constitute an instance of such other Protestant clergy. 
 
 -^'And although in answering your Lordship's question, we specify no other 
 ; church than the Protestant Ctiurch of Scotland, we do not thereby intend that 
 
 besides that church, the ministers of other churches may not be included under 
 > the term " Protestant Clergy." At the same time, as we do not find in the 
 . statute book the acknowledgment by the Legislature of any other clergy an- 
 f swering that description, and as we are not furnished by your Lordships with 
 ;; any information as to the doctrine or description of any other denominations 
 ,j .of Protestants to which the statute of the 31, Geo. Ill, can by possibility apply 
 * ' we are unable to specify any other to your Lordships, as falling within tlic 
 
 statute." 
 
69 
 
 t' I take the opportunity of transmittinj? the late Act of Parliament by which 
 Upper Canada has been severed from the Lower Province, and which may be 
 considered as the Magna Charta under which thai colony will immediately be 
 admitted to all the privileges that Englishmen enjoy, and be confederated and 
 united, and earnestly pray and believe, for ever with Great Britain." 
 
 In the same letter, referring to this Act, (31, Geo. Ill, he said : 
 
 '• It is to be observed that the British i'arlliament, /in the 42nd clause) while it 
 secures, beyond the possibility of any Provincial interference, the protection 
 and endowment which the civil compact of the British Constitution affords to 
 the Established Church, and that in a manner the least burthensome to the sub- 
 ject, by the King's benevolence in the allotment of lands for that purpose, at 
 the same time that it effectually provides for the security of the natural rights 
 of Christians to worship God in tbffr own way, by reserving to itsell the sole 
 power of giving legal authority to any acts which may respect or interfere 
 with such mode of worship." :- . 
 
 In November of the same year, Governor Simcoe wrote to Mr. Secretary 
 Dundas: 
 
 * ' I need Mot, I am sure. Sir, observe that the best security that all just government 
 has for it? existence, is founded on the morality ol the people, and that such 
 morality has no true basis but when based upon religious principles ; it is, 
 therefore, that I have always been extremely anxious, both from political as 
 well as more worthy motives, that the Church of England should be cs.sentially 
 established in Upper Canada; and I must be permitted to say. Sir, that I have 
 received the greatest satisfaction from your expression, that you did not think 
 that government complete without a Protestant Bishop, As 1 conceived such 
 an institution necessary to the support of the experiment that is now making, 
 whether the British Government cannot support itself by its own superiority in 
 this distant part of the world, I beg Sir, to observe to you that the sources from 
 whence a Protestant clergy shall arise, seems totally to be prevented by the 
 want of the episcopal function in this Province." 
 
 In the same letter he said : . , - .) 
 
 •• The state of poverty in which they [the settlers] must, for some time remain 
 after their emigration, will naturally' prevent them from the possibility of sup- 
 porting their m misters by public subscriptione ; in the meanwhile, the govern* 
 ment has in its power immediately to provide for any Protestant clergyman, in 
 the separate townships, by giving them a reasonable landed property in perpetuity 
 for himself and familj', and entrusting with the care of that seventh which is to 
 be reserved for the Protestaut Clergy. Under these circumstances, it is probable 
 that the sons of respectable settlers would offer themselves for ordination, and 
 though they might not, in the first instance, have the learning of the European 
 clergy, their habits and morals might as essentially promote the interest of the 
 community* It is by these means. Sir, that the influence of the Protestant clergy 
 may extend and increase with the rapid growth and value of those lands 
 which are reserv'.<l for their mamtenance, and which, without a due attention 
 being paid in this respt^ct, will naturally be considered, by the people at large, as 
 detrimental to the colony, and may, at no very distant period of time, become a 
 ' temptation to those who shall be hostile to the Union of Upper Canada with 
 Great Britain." 
 
 The Duke of Portland wrote to the Bishop of Qaebec, 14th November, 1794, as 
 follows : — 
 
 *' 1 am very sorry to observe that the dearness of the necessaries of life m 
 Upper Canada, seem to require a greater income than would certainly otherwise 
 be neoessary for an incumbent. At the same time, there cannot be a shadow of ?i 
 doubt, relative to the construction of the Canada act, which annexes to rectories 
 
 i 
 
 '\i 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
5^. 
 
 m 
 
 r'l 
 
 III 
 
 CO 
 
 tnd panonagei erected under the same, the enjoyment of all the rightf, profits, 
 and emoluments belonging to a parsonage and rectory in England, which must 
 vecessarily include tythes. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary for me 
 to add anything further than that, with the existing provisions made by the above 
 mentioned act, for the Church of England in both the Canadas, I trust a small 
 temporary salary from gorernment, with such allowancea is the Society for tho 
 Propagation of the Qospel may be induced to grant, would be sufficient for tho 
 comtortable maintenance of such incumbents as it may be requisite to send from 
 hence for the due performance of tho ecclesiastical duties of the Province of Upper 
 Canada, in the cose above spreiRod.'' 
 
 Two more extracts, and I have done ; for my time will not allow me to read other 
 extracts which 1 had marked. This is from Governor Simcoe to the Duke of 
 Portland, and bears date, June 20th, 1796 : — 
 
 " By the Attorney General's opinion, it seems probable that the Bishop, or 
 his Commissary, can license ministers who dissent from the Church of England, 
 to perform marriages. If this opinion can be acted upon, I shall endeavour to 
 counteract the union of the Dissenters, by separately enjoining their several 
 pastors to take out licenses. In the meantime, I hope your Grace will take the 
 subject into your serious consideration, and give such directions as may seem 
 expedient, before the meeting of the next Provincial Parliament. I have foreseen 
 this event ; and on the probability of an improper association against the national 
 church, did I state my ideas of the propriety of establishing, so fast as possible, 
 clergymen ot the Church of England throughout the Province. 1 1 is obvious that 
 the next claim of the Dissenters would be a partition of the sevenths set apart 
 for the national clergy." 
 
 Now, lastly, the Duke of Portland to Governor Simcoe, June 2sJnd, 1796 : — 
 
 " Alter what I have urged to you in my despatch of ■ '. upon the subject 
 of a suitable provis'on being made by the' colony for the maintenance of its own 
 clergy, it is scarcely necessary for me to remind you that the allowances given by 
 the government of this country must only be considered to be temporary, and as 
 aids and inducements to the several parishes to devise some means of providing 
 for their own clergy, until such times as the church lands shall become sufficiently 
 productive for that purpose ; but as it has been determined to abandon every idea 
 ot any payment in the nature of tithes, I cannot too often repeat to you, that it 
 appears to me of the most extreme importance, that no time should be lost in 
 fixing upon some mode of securing a suitable maintenance for the officiating 
 clergy of the Province." 
 
 Now, I think no doubt can really exist after the reading of these documents, which 
 are official and genuine. I am not repining at the change which has taken place, 
 for I am a member and a minister of the Church of England, whose glory it is to 
 be obedient to the laws. I do not murmur at the provisions of the act of 1840. I 
 am contented with it. It is said that we grasp at everything ; but I reaily do not 
 see how men who have given up two thirds of a thing can be said to be grasping 
 because they wish to keep the remaining third, which is their own. It would be 
 very difficult to convince me that the documents from which I have read these pas- 
 sages are not sufficient to satisfy any unprejudiced mind, ihat the persons most 
 nearly interested in the affiiir when it has commenced, did not believe that the 
 Reserves were intended foi the Church of England, and the Church of England 
 alone. But the opinions of the law officers of the crown are against us, we are 
 told. We are not at all afraid even on this point I am willing to admit that the> 
 said that the clergy of the Church of Scotland might be partakers of these endow- 
 ments. But then, at the same time, it must be remembered that these |;reat men 
 declared that they did not extend to the dissenting ministers, «» since we think that 
 tho term 'Protestant Clergy' can apply only to the Protestant clergy recognized and 
 established by law." I repeat, I would not depnvt you of one iota of the lands, but 
 I ask you to allow us to have possession of our share of the lands, undisturbed. A 
 
61 
 
 Word now in regard to the Rectories ; and on thia point I heg to stale the opinion 
 of the Attorney Gener^.l East. '• Sir," said he, •' if your authorities in the church 
 had not been asleep when they ouf;ht to have been awake, they would have had 
 iSOO reetories, not 50." I have a patent of my own, signed, sealed, and delivered ; 
 and 1 went to several of the crown officers last year, when Mr. Price was bringing 
 in his bill. 1 went to Attorney Genural Lafontaine, and a very nice, gentlemanly 
 man he is. '* is this the sort of thing you folks are going to dabble in 7" I asked. 
 He looked at it, and replied— •• Simply absurd, the very idea : as well, Sir, miglrt 
 you come to take away from me my property in Montreal." This is in perfect 
 accordance with wiiat the same learned gentleman has declared this year in the 
 House. I went to several other members, and repeated my question to them, ani 
 there was not a man who had not the courage to say, " That is too closely like a 
 vested (right to be touched : we'll never meddle with it." 1 have given you the 
 opinion of the law ofHcers of the crown on the subject of the Reserves. Rut we are 
 reminded that there was a certain committee which sat in the House of Commons ; 
 and we are willing to admit that that committee conceived that these clergy reserves 
 must be exteudea to the members of other denominations. Well now, I think that 
 1 have so far established the fact that these lands were designed, I think, exclusively 
 for the Church of Englahd, according io the terns of the letter itself. But we are 
 willing to admit the interpretation of the law ofHcers of the crown. We are wiJiing 
 to go with the committee of the House of Commons, and with the twelve judges. 
 I think, however, that no attempt will be made to assert that any injustice has been 
 done, at all events by the Church of England. 1 am sorry to find gentlemen on the 
 other side saying (I would not willingly say, just to catch a little passing applause) that 
 the Church or England has committed any injustice or fraud. These are hard terms, 
 and by no means courteous. You shall not hear any such terms from my,mouth-- - 
 [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. Jas. RrcHARDsoN — Before I enter into the subject. I take the libertv of ob- 
 serving that 1 do not stand here — and I think I may say the same of my Wethren 
 around me — lo plead for a division of these reserves, that we may come in for a slice. 
 We repudiate that. But we plead for what we believe to be the wishes of the 
 country, repeatedly and strongly expressed, not'only in public meetings and the public 
 papers, but by the representative bodies of the province, and in their legislative 
 capacity. We have no hostility in this movement to the Church of England, or any 
 other church, as a church. And I speak for myself when I say that rather than see 
 the reserves divided, and participated in by the different religious bod|es in the 
 country. I would wish to see them all iu the hands of one chnrch, and if I were H> 
 make a choice it would be the Church of England. 
 
 Rev. W. Bettidqe — Thauk you. 
 
 Rev. J. Richardson — Perhaps you think me very kind ; but I should give it as 1 
 have said, on the principle that the kind mother would keep the sugarplums from her 
 children. I think that the Church of England is accustomed to these plums, and their 
 digestion is not likely to be so troublesome to that church, as they would be if gives 
 to other churches not accustomed to such diet. Having made this remark, 1 will 
 now proceed to th<^ question. My predecessor who introduced the proposition has 
 remarked on the difference observable in the E>tatute 31, Geo. HI., between the 
 phrases "protestant clerg)'," and "clergy of the Chnrch of England." I will pass 
 over that ; but In the same act there is something else worthy of our attention. The 
 act itself expressly recognized other prosestant clergymen than those of the Church 
 of England, by providing for the exclusion from a seat in the House of Assembly any 
 person who shall be a minister of the Church of England, or "a minister, priest; 
 ccelesiastic or teacher, either according to the rites of the Church of Rome or under 
 any other form or mode of worship." These are designated persons in holy orders, 
 and thereby distinguished as clergy. The phraseology of the act goes a great way 
 towards explaioiug the meaning of it. My learned and reverend friend has just 
 quoted documeuts that passed between povernors and ministers of state at home, and 
 has gone largely into the expression of views interchanged between thcec gentlemen. 
 

 I 
 
 I 
 
 vi 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 ;. 
 
 i 
 
 •) ' 
 
 1 
 
 » 
 
 
 ji; 
 
 
 •' ..* 
 
 *:■«;" 
 
 62 
 
 fiat if ho had a volumo from them, it would not ol all alter the meaning of an aet of 
 parliament. We must refer fur the meaning of act, to the act itself. If it be found 
 dubious in its oiausFR, then wo must refer to tho opinions of thone who took part in 
 the framing of it ; and hnppily I am provided with a quotation or two relative to the 
 vi«W8 of thoHO whoassiPtcd in framini; the act. What, I would ask, is the face of 
 a reference to the opinion of a governor or minister of state, who exprossos himself 
 very deeirous — no doubt conscientiously — to see the Church of Kngland availing 
 herself of nil these reserves? ft ia very natural that he shoold wish to see that. But 
 instead of relying upon his wishes and desires, I prol'er to take the design of hia 
 Majesty, Geo: III., and of the ministers and statesmen of that day, in reforenee k> 
 the setting apart one-seventh of the lands of the province as these reserves. Tho 
 first opinion is that of the lion. C. J. Fox, who, we know, was a loader in opposition 
 to Mr. Pitt, but was familiar with all the public discussions of that day. He said. 
 •' By the term protcstant clergy ho supposed to be understood, not only tho clergy of 
 the Church of England, bm all descriptions ofprotestants." The venerable Earl ot 
 Uarrowby said in the House of Lords, June 26, 1838— ., ^ , 
 
 •• He would not have said a word npon the subject of the petition presented by 
 the noble lord (Haddington), had not a reference bei-n made to the opinion ot Lord 
 Grenvillo ; but as such reference had been made, he felt himself called upon to 
 state that he had repeated conversations with that nolile Lord (Grenville,) upon tho 
 subject and he (Lord G.)had not only expressed Iim opinion so, but had requested 
 bim (tho i'arl of Hurrowby,) if anv opportunity '^uould offer, to state that both hiA 
 own and Mr. Pitt's decision was, that the provisions of the 31, Geo. Ill, were not 
 intendei for tho exclusive support of tho Church ci i:Ingland but for the maintenauac 
 , generally of the protestant church." ,. , 
 
 This is to tho point, i^you please ; for wo must r-niembcr that the Earl of Harrowby 
 was a brother-in-law of Mr. Pitt. The next opini )ii to wiiich 1 shall refer is that of- 
 Lord Viscount Siindon. Lord Sandon had Pt.u.,il something in the debate in the 
 House of Lords, and on a report of it reaching i)r. Strachan, he took the liberty, in • 
 an address in tho Legislative Council on the -iaWJect, to question the correctness of 
 the repor ed speech of Lord Sandon. The Committee of the House of Commons 
 subsequently met, and took an opportunity lo draw from Lord Sandon an explanation ' 
 of what were the sentiments which he hf\<l ox|>rossed in the House of Commons. 
 Speaking of what Lord Grenville told him, Lord Sandon said— 
 
 •' I understood him to say that the disiiiii! ion of a protestant clergy, which is 
 frequently repeated in the act of 1791, wis meant lo provide for any clergy that 
 was not Iloman Catholic ; at the samo I'uini leaving it to the Governor and Execu- 
 tive Council of the Province to provi lo In future how that should be distributed." 
 
 The documents which our Rev. fri.tnl read all relaio to this distribution of the 
 reserves — to the appropriation of them to ilie rectories, and providing for the locating 
 ©f the clergymen ; not to the reservoH as reserves, but to their appropriation. We 
 admit that his Majesty has authorized !)y that act, 31, Geo. Ill, to instruct the Gover- 
 nor, or Lient. Governor, to establish 'eciories, and to take any or all these reserves 
 to and on those rectories. But that i.-? quite distinct from tho object intended in 
 making the reservation; Tho reservos is one thing — the appropriation of that bc- 
 serves is another, there is another pt it of tho resolution which deserves a passing 
 notice It is a very unpleasant one. I did not like it when it was put into my hand. 1 
 do not like to accuse gentlemen or parties — ani especially I do not lilce to accuse 
 ohurches — of gro?a injustice and fraud. I would not say that the Church of England 
 was juilty of gross injustice and fraud in any part of this transaction, and much less- 
 would 1 say that any gentleman present would encourage injustice and fraud. Bat 
 in what respect can tha act of Parliament under which the appropriation is now 
 made, be said to bo an aet of injustice and fraud ? First, it is unequal in its pro- 
 visions ; the Church of Eagland receiving two thirds of the lands that had been 
 previously sold, and two-sixths of those that were then unsold ; while the church ot' 
 Scotland receivaJ one-third of those that were fonnorly sold, previous totha passing. 
 
63 
 
 ol ihc act, and ono-sixlh orHiibsequontly sold, or lliat remained unsold. Thus ike 
 Cliurch of England Ihe Church of Scotland received tho whole of the lands that wer« 
 wold previous to the passing of iho act, and we are informed (though I cannot war- 
 rhnt the accuracy of the statement) that they amounted to nearly one-hulf of ibo 
 original rosorvation ; while two-sixths and one-sixth ^o to tho same churches in tlv) 
 distribution of tho unsold reserves ; and the residue is to bo applied fur by other 
 churches, it provides also for tho payment of stipends previously charged to tho 
 •asual and territorial revenue, and among those stipends we find the Roman Catholics 
 sharing in tho provision fur protestants. I am surprised that tho gentlemen are not 
 opposed to tho present act inasmuch as the law prc/iously settinsf apart these re- 
 serves, provided that they wore for the protestant church ; and yet the Roman Catho- 
 lic Chui '» shares — and shares largely in them. What a tho amount which th« 
 Roman La'holic church has received from the Clergy Reserve funds from tbo 
 beginnin^if ? From public documents which I hold in my hand, we learn that llio 
 Roman Catholics received up fo IS48, ho loss than £15.37 lis from the reserve ; 
 and since then they have received £3,333 G« 8d ; making together upwards of £4,- 
 870, now is that not a violation (to use no stronger word) of public faith 7 Lord 
 Grcnville and the sUtosmon of that day could never have dreamed that a part of tho 
 one seventh ol tlie landsof Upper Canada, set apart for a protestant clergy, wovld ever 
 bo appronrialod to the llomnn Catholic church. It is a fraud on those who partici- 
 pate, and more so on those whose principles forbid partrcipation. I know that n 
 good deal has been said about our consciences and their consciences, but I want to 
 appeal to the conscience of tho people. Our reverend opponents will, I presume, 
 bow to the law, founded on the rights of conscience. Should it appear, — as I think 
 it may be made to appear — that tho conscience of this country has been repeatedly 
 expressed in favour of the alienation of these reserves from the churclies, and 
 their appropriation to education, then I maintain that any law which violates this 
 conscience ia not a just law. I say that the conscience of the people of this country 
 has been so expressed, repeatedly, and I am not afraid to appeal to it again ; and [ 
 repeat that any act that is the violation of the conscience of even a large majority of 
 the peopio, in not a fair act. But in the next placo, tho law is not right because by 
 making the diutinction th4t I have noticed, it makes a distinction between her Majes- 
 ty's subjects, they are ail under equal allegiance, and they should all share equally 
 in the benefits derivable from any public property. Public property ? Here comes 
 the question back again. Was it not the right of the crown again to dispose of tho 
 property thus ? to give or withhold these lands ? So far from this being the case, 
 his Majesty was not at liberty te reserve these lands, until he got permission from tho 
 Imperial Parliament. This is plain from the words used in tho preamble of 31 Geo. 
 111. cap. 31. 
 
 "And whereas his Majesty has been r:raciou sly pleased by message to both 
 Houses of Parliament to express his royal de.sire to be enabldd to make permanent 
 appropriation of lands in said province for the support and maintenance of a protes- 
 tant clergy itc." 
 My time is out, but there is a great deal more to be said on this point. [Tims Ex- 
 pired,] 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn, — There are a few moro matters to be disposed of, which hava 
 been introduced by the last speaker and the gentlemen who opened the debate on 
 this proposition. The last speaker has alluded to the act of the Legislature in giviny 
 a portion of the Clergy Reserve fund to the Roman Catholics; and if I understood 
 him right, he spoke as though it were the act of parliament which did that. The 
 act of Parliament does no such thing. 
 
 Rev. J. Richardson. — I said no such thing. You will recollect that there was a 
 chargo on the casual and territorial revenue, previous to the passing of the present 
 act appropriating the reserves. The Roman Catholics had a share in that charge ; 
 and the act provides that these charges on the casual and territoriBl revenue should bo- 
 first met by an appropriation from the reserves. Therefore, tho Roman CathoHcs' 
 sliare m tho reserves. 
 
57"^ 
 
 CI 
 
 •it 
 
 Rr.y. n. Crohyx. — If the irrejolar proceedina (1 will me no haraher form J of d«»» 
 Voting what wai> intended for the Protestant Clergy, hati beea done by tiiose in 
 power, asauredly thv* reiponsibiliiy reaiK on thf m, not upon un. With rogard to what 
 the gen tlr men has aaid concerning the oft-rxprosHrd wishes of the iogUlnturo of thia 
 colony : he surely cannot say that the wishes uf the legislature have been often ex- 
 pressed with reference to tho chunge of the late act, commonly called the imperial act 
 On the rontrary, for ten yean, there was nut a sound heard in the countr}' concern- 
 ing it, from the legislature. There might liave been here and there throughout the 
 country, a voice heard from an individual, not from tho coiniiiunity generally, and 
 especially from tho legiNlature, whereas no expression ofdiNs.-ilipfitcilDri with the ap- 
 propriation made by that act, and therefore, what the gentleman has said about 
 the repeated wishes of tho Icgiitlature fulls to tho ground. It is not the case 
 that the leginlnture have repeated often their wish that tho appropriation made 
 bv the imperial act should be changed. He has referred to the way in which the 
 clergy reserves were sot apart originally. K*ug George the 3rd wished to have 
 it in his power to make provision for a protestant clergy, and how did lie proceed? 
 The revenue of the crown was at his disposal, and he might have done it. But he 
 did not proceed in that way. IJe went, rather, in the moat solemn and constitutional 
 way that our laws are acquainted with, to the Parliament of England, and piulia- 
 inent bestowed the Clergy Reserves. This gentleman says, however, that the 
 Parliament of England had no right to do it. He says it was public property, and 
 that parliament hud no right to give it away. Hut the Parliament of England has 
 given away more than that — a great deal, in this country. Have not thousands and 
 tens of thousands of acres been given to the U. E. Loyalists — by an act of the 
 British Legislature or even without an act cf tho BriiLsh Legislature, and who wishea 
 to interfere to take back the lands 7 Assuredly no ono. But when the parliament of 
 England, in response to a message from the crown, solemnly set apart a ])ortion ol 
 undoubted property of England fur a particular purpose, we say that parliament iidJ a 
 right to do it ; we say parliament was exercitiing a right; and when these or any 
 other gentlemen come forward and say, "you are irving to maintain a wrong," be- 
 cause we wish to maintain what the Parliament of England did, did Rolemly, freely, 
 and unanimously — they take up a position which is not borne out by the facts of the 
 case. And now with reference to the matter in hand. There was |)Rsi>ed in tlve 
 Legislature of the Province of Canada a bill which I will read, and which received 
 the royal assent on the 20th Feb., 1823. 
 
 ** An act relative to the right of Titles within this Province. 
 
 •• Whereas notwithstanding his Majesty has been graciously pleased to reserve, 
 for the support of a protostant clergy in this ptovince, one-seventh of all lands 
 granted therein, doubts have been suggested that the title of the produce of land 
 might still be legally demanded by the incumbent duly ins'.ituted, or rector of any 
 parish ; which doubt it is impoitanttothe well-doing of this c dony to remove ; be 
 it enacted by the King's most excellent Majest\, by and with the arivice and con- 
 sent of the Legislative Council and Assembly of the Province of Upper Canada, 
 constituted and assembled by virtue of, and under the authority of an act passed in 
 the parliament of Great Britain, entitled, •• An act to repeal certain parts of an oct 
 passed in the fourteenth year of his Majesty's reign, entitled • An act for making 
 more effectual provision for the government of the province of Quebec, in North 
 America, and to make further provision for the government of thesnid province,' 
 and by the authority of the same. That no titles shall bo claimed, demanded, or 
 received by an V ecclesiastical parson, rector, or vicar, of tho protestant church 
 within this p~oviuco, any law, custom, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 Now why was this act of the legislature introducod? Because it was thought that 
 the law would entitle rectors and vicars duly inducted in this country, to tithe in this 
 country. It was thought by seme persons of legal knowledge that they had a lei^al 
 flaim to tithe, and in order to set that claim at rosl lor ever, this act wos passed Now 
 1 remember the saying of a legal gentleman, — a man eminent at the bar of thw 
 country— when speaking of this subject, although he joined with these who sought the 
 
'68 
 
 alieuntlon ofthone rewrvei : ••There iino qufftion in my mind," he aiid, *• hit ihat 
 oriyinnlly the Kcsorvcs were inteiulod solely nnrt exclusively lur thr nuirrli ol 
 llnglnnd." Kempmhcr, \vc do not stnnd tip for that now. Wc luf now .inxi* u^ 
 that thp law khonld stand ns it is, nnd whattn-cr thcHe {gentlemen may Nay on the 
 mibject— whatever hard lanitriiaKe they may u^c, 1 trust we shall not (ollow Mieh 
 an example. We wish most t'lillv— we desire most earnesCy, to earrv out th.' 
 re(jiiirerneni« ollliat law, and weshoiilil wish at loa.st that hall' of the whole m.iy 
 he;ipplied as now. No iDiiiter whether the llcHervtJs have been, or are to be 
 5*old. Tim meaning and iiiienlion of the imperial Act was to jjive, halt'of the 
 whole to tlie Governor lor the purpose ofthe reli{,'iou»inslruciioii ol'tho counlry. 
 
 Rev. J. RicHARUBo.v.—lIall ol the Ke.sorvea unsold 1 , ,/^„ . ,\^ . 
 
 Re/. IJ. Ciiowv.— Ves, half of tliO Reserves unsold! nnd f sliould wish tit src 
 an act passed, or some understandin;? arrived at, whereby thcs<' ^'iMitlenien would 
 be released iroin what appears to hi a very irksome duly on their j)art in mal;irij; 
 ap|>licafion for their share. Let it be paid over to those whom they may ap- 
 point. I know that I have to make applieatio?! for the small fiiiiance I receivo 
 out (if the Clergy Reserve Punii, and I do not think thatl am deRraded bv iloing it. 
 I have to come every six ir.onths to the Receiver Ciencral, and there present in 
 duplicate, or triplicate, certain (!ocument.s, anil then I receive ii j and 1 do nut 
 tliink 1 am at all disgraced there by." ■""'"■- " " ' ' ••'• <" <*: u.i: 
 
 Rev. Mu. Ormstov, — You claim! we don't— we aplf. 
 
 dr « ^iji? 
 
 Rev. H. C^aovYN.— 1 would like to see such an arransjemcnt that you could 
 claim- you ou^'lit to be so p'accd that you could. Again: the lirsl speaker af- 
 tcmplcd to draw a nice distinciiou between the doliniie and indcfiiiiit' ailicle ; but 
 1 do thiidc thai that is rather line drawing lor an act of parliament; wc know 
 very well that it is not by such means that acts uV parliament are tg be interpre- 
 ted. We kno.v, however, that we have the opinions oi persons who were engag- 
 ed in the Iraming of this act, who wer(; in the Liovernment nt honic and here — 
 .such as the Uuke of Portland andGover. or Simcoe;they arc the highest auihor- 
 iiies on this point; and as lonij as their authorities stand, so lung the cause we 
 advocate is invulnerable. (Jenllemen opposite may briug documents of a(l«;r 
 dale if ihey choose, but they cannot be placed iii juxta-pusiiioii with the docu- 
 ments whicii my Rev. Brother has brought forward. From thos«c documents, i: 
 is clear that the statute intended that there should be provision lor the Clergy ct 
 the CMuireh of Englaud. I now come to another point. I do not intend eillior l- 
 wound the feelings of any one, or in the slightest degree !,o olTend, by what I am 
 going to say; but I think it necessary to say that 1 am sorry ihat any thing lias 
 been introduced that can cause even a ripple upon the surface of our proceed- 
 ings. Yesterday, we had a day 1 .shall remember for ever wiih pleasure, and I 
 trust that luis day, loo, will close in the same way. Ijui I am coi;:pellcd to say, 
 in refercNce to what has been basei on the words " prolestant clergv," Ihat the 
 law ol Kngland recognizes no clergy in England but the clergy ol tlic Church ot 
 England ; and I can prove it by a case with which some of the Rev. gentlemen 
 may be acquainted. A .sho.t time since, a child was presented to be interred at 
 ihe graveyard of a church in England. The clergyman refused to infer ihr 
 child on the ground that it had not been been baptised. I am nol standing up for 
 the clergyman that done this; lam not saying that he showed good taste, or 
 light feeling, or sou.nd judgment in the matter T I am only stating the fact, for f 
 should be very sorry to advocate such action or principles. He refused, as I have 
 said, and the mallet was brought before a legal tribunal of the country, where it 
 was decided that the clergyman should be punished for not interring the child, 
 because it had received lay baptism — had been baptised by a dissenting minister. 
 The law did not recognize the clerical character of the jperson who baptised it ; 
 ■Imtit recognized lay baptism — ihe baptism of a layman , and therel'ore the cler- 
 ; "'gymnn was bound to inter the child, inasmuch as the canons of the church re- 
 i"»cfigni/es lay baptism. That sets the matter at rest. We consider that is not 
 ■ regular, but that it is valid in a layman to baptise. 1 agree with 
 
 the great 
 
w 
 
 i, 
 
 !'■•■■ 
 
 I 
 
 4 ■■ 
 
 m ;, i 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 Id 
 
 i 
 
 
 m 
 
 ii;'''-i 
 
 66 
 
 Ho oket on this point ; but at any rite the case I have stated shows that baptism 
 by a dissenting minister in England, is lay baptism, and sets at rent all the argu- 
 ments of the Rev. gentlemen with regard to it. The terms of the act do not 
 specify that dissenting ministers are to rank as protestant clergy ; they do not 
 contam one word about dissenting ministers. This could not be done in Eng- 
 land. Were the legislature to do it, the/ would stultify themselvos— they would 
 ignore the lav/s. 1 do not appear here to justify or plead for those laws., 
 Rev. M. 0BM8T0N.-Help us to abolish them, then, if. ^7; ,'" i ,■ ,; .: 
 
 Rkv. B. Crontn — One of the gentlemen spoke concerning the appropriation o( 
 the fund to Roman Catholics. la it ri»ht, or wise, or good, in these gentleraeTi, 
 because a portion is given to Roman Catholics, to try to pull down the Reserves 
 kitogether, and to de^'ote them to secular purposes? Let us all unite to changa 
 that which is wrong. It it be good that Chririt's gospel should be preached in tli» 
 land, and if means muji be supplied tor preaching that gospel; if, as i Brmly believe, 
 the most efficient means can be provided through the instrumentality of the state, 
 and, in this country, tb.ough an endowment that does not take from any man — whicli 
 does not send me into ^ man's vineyard to steal his grapes, or into any man's I 
 
 farm • 
 
 yard to milk his cows, bit which gives to every man who is employed iu the work 
 of evangelizing the country, and teaching the religioil of Jesus Christ, a small 
 portion to aid and assi!i>t him in the performance of that work ; and if into this gpod 
 thing abuses have been introduced, let us unite to do away with them — ^^not to destroy 
 the whole thing. Let us be reformers, not destructives. Lot us reform what 
 is wrong, but in the doing of this, let us not seek to destroy thai which is 
 good and right. That is my feeling; of course these gentlemen do not agree 
 with me ih »t. The rev«rend g :*nt!eman who commenced quoted au act sent from 
 the Imperial Parliament — drafted out in order that we might go right here in refer- 
 ence to th*3e things ; and yet he said we have no vested right. Now put these twj 
 ' things together : there was no vested right whatsoever — we had no claim to these 
 ' Reserves — and yet it was necessary that the law officers at home, and the Parliament 
 at home, should draft a bill — doing what? Lep^islating and giving these away. — 
 There they stood, and we had no right in them (we are told); and yet the legislatuni 
 had to interfere. That proceedin;' most clearly establishes this, that, the Parliament 
 and the Crown law-officers considered that the Reserves belonged to somebody — 
 'hat somebody had a olaim to them ; aad moreover this — that until that claim was 
 done away, there was no opening for the Parliament at home or here to interfere 
 concerning them. It defeats his whole argument on that groundi. It is said wo 
 have given up no inheritance. That gentleman has given up an inheritance at thu 
 bar by going iaio the ministry. It is clear irom his legal skill in handling acts of 
 Parliament, that he has given up a very ample inheritance, and I say lie ought to 
 receive something tor it. But I repeat that the very fact which he adduced answers 
 his argument with regard to vested right. Some>one had the right, otherwise that 
 riaht would not have been voted away by any act of parliament. Now I am very 
 sorry that there should be discussion in this question. I firmly believe in my 
 conscience that the clergy of the Church of England were intended by the act of 
 1791. I am willing to iorego that. I was glad, for the sake of peace, thlit aii 
 arrangement had been effected, I thought the thing was settled, and for ten year^^ 
 I looked upon it ae matter that I should u ver need to think of again. I thought 
 that we should receive our own in peico, and really was under the impression tliMt 
 those gentlemen, or some of thorn, wtre receiving their portion from year to year; 
 but of course 1 era deceived in that. '•• ' ^ '«>i.' ■ " > • . ■ • ;,, • • ;.* ■ 
 
 I Time expired.] < '■ , V^ 
 
 Rev. J. RoAr — It has been hinted that there was som^tViing ancourteona on my 
 part in what I eaid lespecting fraud in the e.xisiing anangernents. Allow me t) 
 di'>tinguish bt-tweon individuals and proceedings. 1 do not impute wrong to thosi- 
 gentlemen ; I have not the pleasure of knowing an incident of th- ir lives, but 1 hav > 
 seru enough of tlism here to know that they are gentlemen as well as scholars, and 
 1 would not iiiii/u:e to thtm disLotiorable aciions. I ha\e not done so. There u 
 
er 
 
 oa my 
 
 me t) 
 
 o thosi- 
 
 i hav > 
 
 rs, aiii 
 
 'here u 
 
 nothing in th» proposition which can be held to be dishonourable to Ihem indlvi Jdallv. 
 The proposition is that "these tlenicnt made by 3 and 4 Vict, was an act of gru'« 
 injustice." I think it ia, and I think, furttier, that on these occasions we should 
 •peak out distinctly, especially as the gentleman who^openoj the debate yesterday 
 declared thai one object of the discussion was to bring thes^stateini'nts side by aide. 
 1 do not state behind their backs what I do not state here. I look on the arrangernfnt 
 •a a very wronjfful one — m very tyrannical and very fraululent — as a very gront 
 cnrse to this province — as the source of ajfitation, a stop to missionary oxertioa to a 
 gr«at extent, and as a means of dissension. Canada will nevesr ba prcioerous whilo 
 this system continucH. I hope that if I do not see the enJ of it, my children will, for 
 lam desirous of getting the system abolished. At the same time I would rfceive 
 courtesies from these gentlemen very gratefully, and reciprocate them promotly and 
 cordially. Allusion has been made to the opinion which the Attorney and Solicitor 
 General gave on the reference of the Niagara petition to them, in which they sail 
 that dissenters could not be iucludeJ, because there are no dissentors recognized as 
 protftstant clergy in the statute books of Kngland. But in the stat "e books of this 
 province, we do stand as a proiostant clergy. The sects are not mentioned in 
 England as a protestant clergy — they are merely tolerated ; hat we are here re- 
 eognized, certain powers are given touj by statute, and wo come in under the general 
 dessription, protestant clergy. The axtracts which the gentleman opposite read were 
 extracts, not from what took place in parliament or in the presence of the judges, but 
 from the correspondence of partisans of one particular church — friends of that churcii, 
 trying to promote it. Besides, much of the correspondence was written alter the 
 passing of the act of parliament, and have nothing to do with the explanation of it« 
 meaning. The meaning has been declared by the judges— tha higliest authorities— 
 f« well as by colonial secretaries (two or three), and hv law olficers whose opinions 
 hav<; been given. Mr. Beitridge referred to tithes in Canada, in lien of which it is 
 said, the reserve^ were instituted. It is perfectly manifest — that Mr. Bettridge got 
 #nto the mistake which rana through all his extracts from what Mr. DeBlaquiere got 
 publisned: not one touches the question. The tithes in Canada do not relate to the 
 protestant clergy. When this couutry was conquered, it was enacted that tithes 
 should not be paid by protestants to tho Iloman Catholic priesthood, as they would 
 have had to do if there hal been no special enactment. To relievo protestants, it 
 was enactecfthat they should not pay. Tithes were given tagr>v6rnmont, not to the 
 clergy of the Church of England : not one of them touched the tithes. The tithe* 
 went by law into t! o haadj of the fleoeiver Geaerul ot the province at Quebec, who 
 waa to hold them against a time wh«n an appropriation was to be mad^. That was 
 the case with regard t'l the titho« al Q'lebea. Dr. Strachan afterwards got an act 
 passed to declare that there v/aa nosucti right as a right to tithes, in existence, and 
 that popular opinion thereon was involved. Surely, no inference is to be drawn from 
 that in favor of the clergy previously having a right to these tithes. We have been 
 told the opinion of Mr. Lafontaine and others on the subjf«ct of the rectories. Now [ 
 to state thai I believe there is no equity lawyer in Toronto, who will aflirin that 
 
 beg 
 
 They are invalid iu 
 
 any rectory patent which they have seen is worth anything. 
 
 point ot law. 
 Rev. F. EvAKs — Order. 
 
 R?v. J. R«»vi'— I repeat, in point of h-v these patents are utterly invall 1. They 
 iasiitute a rectory, and then sav that . 'rtain lands shall belong to that rectory. 
 They endow the rectory, which 'is the thing. They don't— is thi-y ongh* to havi 
 done— endow Mr, B'ttridge and his successors. There can bo m vested property 
 
 except in the ndividud. There mast bo a person to receive property. They 
 havo assigned lands to a thing, which cannot hold lands in the eye of the law. It h 
 ihs general opinion o( thj equity lawyers in Toronto, therefore, that in that resp.^-n 
 —apart from all other c »risidorations— the deed* appointing the^^e rectors are invalid. 
 We were to! 1 bv Mr Croivn thu ths responsibility of th.3 act giving a j-u:.- n( thesa 
 raserves to Riniin Cjth )lic9, rests upo i ih-i piiliamrit. not upon U'. I beg to stale 
 tliat the m-asnro was stro:»?lv rec>:n-n:nd.'d hy Dr. StraciiAu. an I 0:. Sirac lan re, 
 presanta tho c\orgy of the Church of t: :»<jlanl in this prayin«a. IL- is whit t.ie tiilt» 
 
 ti 
 
yT 
 
 1 1 
 
 • '■■ G8 
 
 ia to a book—he indicate the whole. Wo have been told that not a voice bna been 
 iieard against the reserves for ten years. Why ? was there not the rebellion 7 . 
 
 Rev. F. Evans,— There has been no rebellion within the last 10 year?. 
 
 Rev. J. RoAF,— A lipsus lingua that's all. The rebellion occurred in 1837-8, ami 
 the imperial act pasfeed in 1840. In the interim, we had Lord Sydenham and Lord 
 Durham trying to put the province t^traight, and Lord Sydenham sent home the act 
 which occasioned the passing of the existiijB; one. There was agitation on tlie 
 question at thai time. After 1840. the quesiion was put off till respor.sible govorn- 
 meul was established, which it was expected would put a slop to the tyrannical pro- 
 ceedings by which the Legislative Council had baffled the wishes of the people. We 
 have been looking lor the alienation of the reserves ever since we got responsible 
 fjovcrnment ; at last, becoming impatient, we began to stir the question ; and finally 
 our leaders recognized the influence of the pressnre from without. Unquestionably, 
 the parliament of England had a legal right to sot apart the reserves— just as a con- 
 queror, having got possession of a country by force, has a right to do what he pleases. 
 Tarliamont could have said, Canada shall be a desert, if they liked. Thoy had pow- 
 er but this is not the right of a government. The right of a government ia to be a 
 " tenor to evildoers" and " praise to them that do well"— in other woids, to ad- 
 niinistcr the resources and aflairs of c country for the benofil of all. Rlacketone, in 
 his Commentaries, says — . >. .• i • .i 
 
 '• IPan uninhabited country be discorored ard planted by English subjecta, all 
 English laws then in being, which are the birthright of every subject, are immedi- 
 utefv there in force. But this must be understood with very many and very groat re- 
 strictions. Such colonists carry with them only so much of the English law as is 
 jipplicable to their own situation, and the condition of an infant colony ; such, foi 
 instance, as the the general rules of inheritance and of protection from pcsonal in- 
 juries. The artificial requirements and distinctions incident to the prosperty of a 
 great and commercial people, the laws of police and revenue (such especially as 
 are enforced by penalties.) the mode of maintenance for the established clergy, tiio 
 jurisdiction of spiritual courts, and a multitude of other provisions, are neither ne- 
 cessary nor convenient for them, and therefore are not in force." 
 
 This great writer here says, most truly, that government have no right to put upon 
 us by force any one mode of faiih for all lime. J f they had a right to do it at ono 
 time, they have no right now. Are we to be ruled by the dead ? Are wo to be con- 
 trolled by past ages 1 There are rights of a legal nature to which I would peacefully 
 submit, but in which I could not acquiesce. I do not dispute the right of the 
 Jiritish government to give two and a half millions of acres in Canada to a particular 
 church or churches. A legal right they have, but no moral right — the right to deal 
 v/ith slaves, but no such right asl recognize. [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. W, Bettridge. — Wa come now to the compromise, with respect to which 
 I wilisim.ply read that which Lord John Russell expressed in the House of Com- 
 mons preparatory to the passing of the existing act. In asking leave to bring in the 
 ])ill, May 28, 1840, his lordship said, "of course, if these propositions t;houId be 
 ndiipted, the whole matter might be considered as finally settled." On the second 
 reading, his lordship said, " It was thought desirable to seitle the question in such a 
 manner ah to i)romote the religious instruction of the people, and procure the perma- 
 nent settlement of the dispute." There, then, was the compromise; and as far as 
 we were concerned, all we had to do was acquiesce in it. If there has been any in- 
 justice or fraud perpetrated, it has not been by the Cliurcli of England, nor by the 
 individ.^al membersofthatchurch. Itcomes with rather an ill grace from gentle- 
 men who have been waiting, as they say, for responsible government (and 1 as wil- 
 lingly yield to responsible government as they do, for 1 am a lover of law, and a 
 lover of representative government) ; 1 say it comes with very ill grace from conFli •• 
 tutional advocates of the rejiresentative system, when they say that representatives «t 
 the people, sitting in parliament, commit gross injustice and fraud. Tbese were 
 <lone, if done at ail, by representative — or responsible government. •> • ■ ■ ' 
 
Rev. J.,Roi».— In England. 
 
 Rev. W. Bkttridge— But was confirmed here. 
 Rev. J. RoAF.— Oh dear, no ! ' 
 
 Rev. W. Bettridoe.— At all events, we are obliged to bend to the law. Besides, 
 it is but fair to imagine that the imperial senators are as likely to do that which is 
 lightas the provincial ones. As far as I understand the whole matter, I think it 
 rests on the distribution-the arrangoment.-and it is in reference to this I presume ihat 
 our fri-nds opposite believe some great injustice has been perpetrated. Now what 
 is the population ? I recollect myself recommending to Lord Glenelg and the au- 
 thoritiea at home, the very principle upon which the distinction was made, and in 
 that recommendation 1 certainly did not act quite in accordance with the views of 
 some of those whose opinion I might have attended to. But I felt that this question 
 had been a most grievous bone of contention amongst tis, and I expressed myself 
 distinctly to the effect that I would rather there should be no clergy reserves than 
 that there should be disunion. I therefore recommended at the time that some 
 such division should take place as was actually made. And now to the figures. 
 Taking the lastcenjus as our basis, it appears' that the United Church of England 
 and Ireland (speaking in round numbers) now has 171,000 members. We have 
 taken a third of the whole ot those lands which remained unsold. It would seem 
 (hat the whole protestant inhabitants of this country amount to 537,000. If you di- 
 vide these, you will find at once that if we had one real third, we ought to have 
 179,000, instead of 17 UOOO ; but I suppose you will not be so sharp with us as that. 
 With respect to the Church of Scotland, we must speak before the unhappy division 
 took place. That church had one one-sixth of the whole of the unsold lands, at 
 present, the Free Presbyterian Church and the Church of Scotland number 134,000 
 members. Looking at this aggregate, the Church of Scotland would not have had 
 its share in having only the one-sixth. Add the members of the Church of Scotland 
 (including Free Church) and of the Church of England together, and we have 305,- 
 000 — being considerably more than half of the whole population. Those who dissent 
 from the churches of England and Scotland amount to 23'2,000, now they gel half ol 
 the reserves, and we— *the Church of England ?nd the Church of Scotland— amount- 
 ing to 305,000, only get the other half. That does not seem a very unjust or a very 
 fraudulent arrangement. If it were necessary to alter that arrangement, 1 should be 
 one of the first to say, let us go to parliament. But it would be most unhappy for 
 us to be going to strive on the floor of parliament. I should be very sorry to be 
 discussing this subject perpetually ; 1 would rather meet fraternally, to discus6 ques- 
 tions which I trust all of us think more highly of. I trust we meet fraternally even 
 now, for although we say a few tart things, I hope and feel that they are only on 
 the lip not in the heart. I wish our friends had omitted the terms gross injustice and 
 fraud from the proposition because it must bo admitted that according to what was 
 law then, in the opinion of the highest legal authorities there was no injustice in the 
 settlement. There must be a right before there can be fraud. ' If I take from you, 
 there is fraud, because what I take is yours. But according to the law otTicera of 
 the crown in 1818, these gentlemen had no right whatever. I don't say whether or 
 not you ought to have had any right. But 1 do say that at present you have half of 
 the reserves then unsold; and gladly would I go v ith you to parliament that you 
 might be able to dispose of your share according to the wishes of your denomina- 
 tions.; andl should like also to have tne privilege of also getting our share into our 
 hands. Whetever may have been the case in by gone times, I concede that by the 
 act of 1840 you have as clear and undoubted a right to your share of the lands as we 
 have to outs, and under this consideration I cannot see a reason for any further con- 
 test. Although the right of conscience has been often spoken of by one of our 
 reverend friends, yet I still think there is conscience ; and if any of our friends 
 would like to receive their share in some other manner or shape, I'll go with you to 
 ask for the change. We do not want to wrong any man. If you dont't like to have 
 your share for religion, take it for education. Still I say, if your conscience refuses 
 Co allow you to receive this in the way which the Imperial Parliament has sanctioned, 
 
 '*!' 
 
70 
 
 f 
 
 m 
 
 
 '3: 
 
 
 in 
 
 
 ^0 sllow HB to act upon our own conscience in the exercise of our own righl. Dfl 
 not my that in availing ourpelves of the provijiions of the imperial statute, we are 
 comm'itling an act ot groee injustice or fraud. I have already shown that in taking 
 tlie ono-th[rd we are taking no more than we are entitled to, in proportion to the 
 population. We have lieuid something about the conscience of the people. I con- 
 tend that the conscience of the majority has nothing to do with the conscience of the 
 minority. Do you wish to force our consciences 7 Let the members of the Church 
 of England act as they please in what concerns only themselves, refuee your share, 
 if your conscience cannot take it. But let it not be said that because you claim to 
 ht — perhaps are— the majority, the Church of England shall be compelled to give tp 
 hor rightful portion, and we poor rectors be forced to go without our £100 a year. 
 
 Ror. J. Richardson— 1 claim the right to explain. " .'" 'r' " 
 
 Chairman— It can only be allowed by muiural consent. 
 
 Rev. J. RrcHARDSON— The last gentleman has reflected on me by saying I made 
 light of his conscience I disavow it. I have a high respect [ox the consciences of 
 these gentlemen, andfor the church they represent. i». .mj., 
 
 Chairman — We are bound by particular rules, agreed upon previously, and we 
 cannot now deviate from them. 
 
 Rev. J. Richardson — I am not|;oing to argue the point, 1 only wish to explain 
 my own meaning. , ;,, , i,. , ' ■,. ^ 
 
 Rev. W. Bettrhtgk — I disclaim any personal reference. You said freqnently 
 that the majority have declared against any establishment, and you desired to appeal 
 to the public conscience. 
 
 Rov. J. Richardson — 1 was shown yesterday that governments have consciences. 
 
 Chairman — We will proceed with the next proposition on the voluntary side 
 
 which is as follows — 
 
 5— That the 57 Rectories were established in violation of the public faith, contrary (o the 
 instructions of the Imperial Government, and at variauce with the oft-expreeseu wieb«c 
 of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Upper Canada. 
 
 Rev^ Dr. Burns — Reference has been made to conscience, and opinions have 
 heen given from side to side. Jt is a delicate subject but 1 shall venture to give a 
 third opinion. The two national Churches rely upon a support from the state ; 
 other denominations refuse to receive any relief from the Clergy Reserve fund, and 
 some of them allege that they do so from conscientious principles. My opinion there- 
 fore is, that it is not right on either side to make allusion to the conscience of the 
 other. I rise to support the proposition which has just been read, and it will have 
 been seen that the subject that falls to me is very closely connected with the one 
 that was last discussed ; and in consequence of that close connection, references 
 have been more or less pointedly made to it, and the field which 1 intended 
 to occupy has been limited. I do not regret that. 1 think that some of tho 
 principles that have been brought forward, as well as the facts which have been stated, 
 may with great advantage be kept in mind, as enabling parties to judge of the 
 rectory question. For ray part, 1 have always viewed the rectory question as by far 
 the most important of the two — important as the otht'r unquestionably is. The rec* 
 tory question is important in this view — that it always has appeared tome to be de- 
 cisive of the claims of a dominant hierarchy m this country. The setting up of 
 rectories, always with territorial bounds and glebe lands — much of the lands so ap- 
 propriated being very valuable, and the whole forming part of the Clergy Reserves 
 —has gone far to set up what we would call an establishment in this country. And 
 in reference to the history of the matter, allow me to remind you that the movement 
 in regard to the rectories bears date 15th January, 1836. I at once acknowledge with 
 the friends who have spoken before me, that authority was given for this by the same 
 deeds that granted the reserves. I mean the constitution act of 1791. There is no 
 question of that. But it is a well known an4 a very important fact that from 1791 
 up to 1836, no movement whatever waa made in order to carry out that proviuon uf 
 
71 
 
 the act. I consider this an important fact — that the whole matter of rectories was 
 l«ft in abeyance for the long period X)f forty-five years. This would have been 
 wnimportant had the question regarding the Reserves lain in abeyance also; bnt 
 during that period — during the greater half of it, indeed — most important proceed- 
 ings took plnce in resard to tlie Reserves. Tho opinion of the Crown lawyers in 
 London had been taken by Lerd Balhurst in regard to the right of the different 
 protostant denominations. The petition of the Church of Scotland, in 1821, had 
 formed the subject of very full discuBsien both in England and Cannula. Mr. Morris's 
 ten resolutions on tlie subjeet, in 1823, had passed. The petition of the Clergy ot 
 ihe Church of England had gone home, asking for power to sell a portion of the 
 lands in order that the proceeds might be appropriated to the endowment of a bish- 
 opric, ll>e endowment of archdeacons, the endowment of the clergv, and the educa- 
 tion of the people in the principles of the Church of England. T^hat was in 1828. 
 Then, in 1828, the great committee of the House of Commons was appointed, 
 whose report is one of the most valuable documents to which appeal can be made. 
 Daring the whole ol thai period not a word was said about rectories. Not until 
 Januar)-, 1836, as I have already said, was the first movement made, in regard to 
 rectories in this countr)*. I will now read the minute in Council authorizing the 
 establishment of rectories in Upper Canada, with an extract from the confidential 
 dispatch on which the Council acted. I don't know how many form the Execuiive 
 Council, but on this memorable occasion, the number present was not very large. 
 Those present were, (he Hon. Peter Robinson, Presiding Councillor, Gtorge H. 
 Markland, and Joseph Wells ; and their rnimite, which bears date, Friday, 15th 
 June, 18^, is as tbllows :— 
 
 *'To His Excellency Sir .John Colborne, K.C. B, Lieutenant Governor of the 
 Province of Upper Canada, Major-Genoral commanding His Majesty's Fcicos 
 therein, &c., &c., &c. r t , 
 
 ■•' May it pleaee Your Excellency — 
 
 " Pursuant to the xiewa of Lord Goderich, shewn by his Despatch of the 5th 
 April, 1832, in which he eoncurs with your Excellency, and expresses his desire 
 • that a moderate portion of land should be assigned in each Township or Parish 
 for insuring the future comfort, if not the complete maintenance, of the rectors,' 
 the Council caused the necessary steps to be tak^n, ior the purpose of setting 
 apart lots in each township throughout the Province. 
 
 •' Much delay has been caused by their anxiety to avoid interfering with persons 
 who might have acknowledged claims to any of the Reserves to be selected, either 
 for lease or purchase. 
 
 ** A difficulty in completing what his Lordship mcst appropriately calls 'this 
 Balutary work,' was alto, caused by the Crown Officers not concurring in the form 
 to be used in the instrument by which the endowment is to be confirmed, which 
 left the Council to decide as to the mode to bo adopted for that purpose. 
 
 " These obstacles have been surmounted, and it is respectfully recommended 
 that no time be lost in authorizing the Attorney General to prepare the necessary 
 instruments to secure to the incumbents named in the annexed schedules, and 
 their successors, the lots of land there enumerated as having been respectively 
 set apart for glebes. 
 
 "All which is respectfully submitted." - , . 
 
 Here is an extract from Lord Goderich'a confidential Dispaloh to Sir J. Colborne, 
 dated 5th April., 1832, on which these gentlemen, in the plenitude of their wisdom, 
 are acting : — 
 
 "And I am happy to find that your practinl views, founded upon pereoaal 
 knowledge and experience, are so coincident with those which upon a more spec- 
 ■lative view I had been led to entertain. I quite concur with you in thinking that 
 the greatest benefit to the Church of England would be derived from applying a 
 portion at least of the funds under the control of the Executive Government, iu 
 
 
 » ■ 
 't ' 
 
 f : I 
 
 i . 
 
72 
 
 W 
 
 if i 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 IH 
 
 
 M* 
 
 
 
 tlie building of rectories and churches ; and I would add, in preparing, as far as 
 may be, for profitable occupation, that moderate portion of lana which you proposo 
 to assign in each township or parish, for ensuring the future comfort, if not the 
 complete maintenance, of the rectors. With this view, it appears to me that it 
 would be desirable to make a beginning In this salutary work." 
 
 This, then, is the authority on which the rectories were established. I complain 
 that for forty-five years, when the whole subject was under most heartv and zealous 
 discussion — when the whole colony, and Britain, and both Houses of Parliament, 
 were deeply and diligently occupied with the great subject of the Clergy Reserves, 
 in its entire view — not a word was said in reference to the rectoaies until this time. 
 It is proper to remind you that there were rectories before this time in Canada. 
 There were at least three rectories from a very early period, and others had been 
 added ; but these rectories were more nominal than real. They did not imply any 
 act of the government, or any distinct approppiation of glebe lands. They belonged 
 to another constitution than that which now exists ; and allho' Lord Goderich alludes 
 to the building of rectories, it does not amount to the carrying out of the principle 
 laid down in 1791, which principle is, by a recommendation of a majojity in Coun- 
 cil, solemnly given ; and the conditions on which these rectories shall be founded, 
 being duly stated to the Governor, he is then entitled to take steps to carry out the 
 act. 1 would remind you of what happened. We would have expected that such 
 an important resolution as that of constituting rectories would have been immedi- 
 ately communicated to the Home Government by the the; Governor. Mark that 
 four years elapsed between the despatch of Lord Goderich, in 1832, and the pio- 
 ceedings of the Council in 1836. During that time, not a wo.d is uttered as to any 
 proposal in regard to that matter having been brought before the Council. It is 
 plain, then, that this confidential despatch never would have been brought out, had 
 not the legality of the thing been challenged. When was this communicated to 
 llie Home Government ? You will be surprised when 1 tell you that while the 
 deed passed in January, 1836, no communication was made to the then Secretary 
 of the Colonies, touching this, for at least eleven months ; and I now call your 
 attention to the instructions which the Colonial Secretary had been giving in the 
 meantime for the guidance of the then Governor, namely, Sir Francis Head. In 
 the meantime Lord Glenelg sent this paper, part of which has been read by Mr. 
 Roaf, and the remjiinder of which I will now read, being that part which has refer- 
 once to the anticipated conflict of opinion, as it is called. This paper does throw 
 light on the view entertained by the Government of Britain in regard to the right of 
 varying and repealing. Lord Glenelg says (immediately after the passages which 
 have already been read) : — 
 
 "In the controversy, therefore, respecting ecclesiastical endowments, whick 
 at present divides the Canadian Legislature, I find no unexpected element ofagi- 
 tatien, the discovery of which demands a departure from the fixed principles of Ute ' 
 constitution, but merely the fulfilment of the anticipations of Parliament in 1791 in 
 the exhibition of that conflict of opinion for which the statute of that year may be 
 said to have made a deliberate preparation'. In referring the subject to the futuro 
 Canadian Legislature, the authors of the constitutional act must be supposed to 
 have contemplated the crisis at which we have now arrived — the era of warns 
 and protracted debate, which in a free government may be said to be a necessary 
 precursor to the settlement of any great principle of national policy.' We must 
 not have recourse to an extreme remedy merely to avoid the embarrassment 
 which is the present though temporary result of oui own deliberate legislation." 
 
 Lord Glenelg objected, therefor©, to the withdrawing from the Canadian to the 
 liritish Legislature the question respecting the Clergy Reserves. That, be says, 
 " would be an infringement on that cardinal principle of Colonial government which 
 forbids parliamentary interference," except in reference to a well established and 
 evident necessity. Another despatch is also given, according to which it appear» 
 that very important changes had taken place in respect to public opinion in England 
 ip the meantime* and the consequence was, that when a communication was mad© 
 
73 
 
 to Lord Glenelg, in regard to them rectories, ho sent this answer. It i$ very impor<^ 
 tant, and, aa 1 have Baid, ik in reply to the annonncemenl regarding the rectories: — 
 
 Downing Street, 6th July, 1837. 
 
 •' You are aware that your despatch of the 17lh December, 1836, contained the 
 first official intimation which ever readied mo, of the rectoriea having been either 
 established or endowed." 
 
 Have we not a right to complain at the great delay which took place between tho 
 action on the part of the Provincial Government, and tho communication to the 
 Home Government, most deeply interested as they were ? This was " the first 
 afficial information," Lord Glenelg says, which ever reached himk He goes on to 
 day : — 
 
 "The fact had been asserted in Parliament, but I was not only officially unin- 
 formed, but really ignorant that it had occurred. I therefore requested you to 
 supply me with the necessary information, and until it reached me, in the month 
 of February last, I was entirely destitute of all authentic intelligence as to what 
 had really been done." 
 
 This is a singular state of things for any country. But Lord Glenelg knew how to 
 oil the razor, for he proceeds thus : — 
 
 •' You will not, I trust, even for a moment suppose that I refer in the spirit of 
 censure or complaint to the silence of the Provincial government on this occasion. 
 It admits of an obvious explanation. The creation and endowment of the recto- 
 ries was almost the last act of Sir John Colborne's administration, and at that timo 
 you were actually on your way fVom New York to Toronto. Your predecessor 
 
 f>robably assumed that the proceeding would be reported by you, be having at 
 east, as it may well be imagined, scarcely leisure enough for the discharge of his 
 many indispensable and urgent public duties. On the other hand, it is impossible 
 nut to respect the feelings which indisposed you to enter on the subject." 
 
 New ii)ark ! These are the feelings suggested or indicated by Lord Glenelg as 
 having indisposed Sir Fr B. Head from interfering on the subject : — 
 
 '' Regretting the measure itself, as creating a new embarrassment in your path, 
 at that time beset by difficulties of no ordmary kind, and naturally regarding it as 
 irremediable, you preferred to contend with the obstacle silently, rather than to 
 avail yourself of it either as an apology in the event of failure, or as enhancing 
 yo\it own merit in the event of success. To this generous solicitude for tho credit 
 of your immediate predecessor, I have always attributed your omission to report 
 his proceedings with regard to the rectories ; and I fully admit that, Hith the 
 opinion which you entertained, and could scarcely have failed to enter'.ain, as to 
 the validity of the aet itself, the motives for making it the subject of correspond- 
 ence were'but few and of no great weight. Although for the reasons to be sub- 
 sequently stated, I am compelled, to think that the creation and endowment of the 
 rectories were not lawful or valid measures, yet it would be most foreign to my 
 real intention, if I should be si' posed to cast any doubt on the propriety of Sir 
 John Colborne's conduct in reierence to them. That distinguished officer has 
 given too many proofs of his devoted zeal for His Majesty's service, and for tho 
 good of the King's subjects, to permit the admission of even a surmise injurious 
 to his public spirit on this or any other occasion ; and although I may differ from 
 him in opinion as to the expediency of establishing the rectoiies, especially at tho 
 moment chosen for 'hat purpose, yet 1 am convinced that Sir John Colborne 
 would, as readily as any other man, acknowledge that opposite views of the pub- 
 lic interest upon any particular question may be entertained by men engaged in 
 th« sanie branch of His Majesty's service, without derogating in the slightest 
 degree from their mutual esteem aud confidence* Indeed, in proportion to tho 
 strength of those feelings, will usually be the freedom with which such opposite 
 views are avowed and discussed." 
 
 [Time expired — extract not completed. J . 
 
 I;l 
 
 ; ii; 
 
 Mil 
 
 ,. I: 
 
 \i ■', 
 
I : 
 
 
 r 
 
 III 
 
 Rev. F. EvAKs — 1 wa« rebuked this morning for irapoaing an undue ehare of vrork 
 on my valued brethren, whose cases furnish an illustration of the old notion, that 
 •he man who is willing to labour, always has plenty to do. At any rale, I hare 
 rensnn to be satiofied with the orranijemont ; and I have the consolation of knowin|^ 
 that if I appear to have i-hirked hard work, I have only imitated at a humble dis- 
 tance the example uf I^nrd Glenelg, who, it is said, was not very fond of toil, and 
 ©ccftsionally dozed wlim he should have been induHiriously employed. It is appa- 
 rent from 'whni we have just heatd, that somebody once look a doee instead of 
 aitending to the proceedings of the Province. Before entering on this head, however, 
 let me |ro for a moment to the propobjlion before us. Althongh there has heftn a 
 good deal 0** latitude in the discussion, 1 ho{>e the (gentlemen tiro not iatitudinarian 
 in a more important sense. It is asseited that the fifty-seven rectories were estab*. 
 lished ill violation of public faith. Dr. Burns'had twenty minutes to prove this, 
 and although 1 dare say he made the most of his time, it is quite plain that he haa 
 not touched tlio real question. The proposition might have been written in Hindos- 
 tanee or Chinese, ibr ail that Dr. Burns has eaid concerning it. It is my duty, 
 liowever, to refute the proposition. What do we mean by public faith ? I will b« 
 very brief on th;.s point. I will suppose that it means authority constituted by 
 ihe'law of the land. That is my definition of public faith ; and I therefore deny 
 that the fifty-seven rectories were established in violation of the public faith. I will 
 now r«ad a'few passages from the Act 31, Geo. III., c. 31, under which the reserves 
 were appropriated : — 
 
 ••Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful for 
 His Majesty, his heirs and successors, to authorize the Governor or Lieotenant 
 Governor of each of the eaid Provinces respectively, or the person administering 
 the government therein, to make, from and out of the lands of the Crown within 
 such Provinces, such allotment and appropriation of lan'^.s, for the support and 
 maintenance of a protestant clergy within the same, as may bear adue proportion 
 to the amount of such lands within the same as have at any time been granted 
 by or under the authority of His Majesty, and that whenever any grant of lands 
 within either of the eaid Provinces shall hereafter be made, by or under the 
 authority of His Majesty, his heirs or successor;!, there shall at the same time be 
 made, in respect of the same, a proportionable allotment and appropriation of lands 
 far the above mentioned purpose, within the township or parish to which soch 
 Innds so to be granted shall appertain or be annexed, or as nearly adjacent thereto 
 as circumstances will admit." 
 
 kgam 
 
 •• And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and in«y 
 be lawful for IJis Majesty, his heirs or successors, to anthorize the Governor or 
 Lieutenant Governor of each of the said Provinces respectively, or the person 
 administering the Government therein, from time to time with the advice of 
 Etich Executive Council as shall have been appointed by His Majesty, his heirs 
 ur successors, within such Province, for the affairs thereof, to constitute and erect, 
 within every towrship or parish which now is or hereafter may be formed, consti- 
 tuted or erected, <vilhin such Province, one or more parsonage or rectory, or 
 parsonages or rectories, according to the establishment of the Church of England; 
 and from time to time, by an instrument under the great seal of such Province, to 
 endow every such parsonage or rectory with so much or such a part of the lands 
 so allotted and appropriated as aforesaid, in respect of any lands withii luch 
 township or parish which shall have been erranted subsequent to the commence- 
 ment of this act, or of such lands as may have been allotted and appropriated for 
 the same purpose, by or in virtue of any instruction which may be given by His 
 Majesty, in respect of any lands granted by His Majesty before the commence- 
 ment of this act, as such Governor, Lieutenant Governor, or person administering 
 the government, shall, with the advice of the said Executive Council, judge to b» 
 expedient under the then existing circumstances of such township or parish." 
 
 It is evident from this, that if be had cboEen. the Governor— by and with .the advifft 
 
rw*TO'>flT»W«5Wi'i''^ 
 
 75 • 
 
 t>ftiiiCo»ncn— might in one townihip, or in all the (o^neliipa, have endowed recto* 
 riea with every acre of the clerpy reserves in the Province ; and gentlemen opponii*! 
 might then have searched in vain for the remainder. Much etrens has been laid nn 
 ihe terms varying or repealing, but thev appear to me to have mainly rented upon 
 the question of the manner in which the lands should be applied, and the manner in 
 which incumbents or ministers ehould hold and enjoy the same ; and not in any 
 way to aflert tho appropriation of the lanc<s for the support of a proteetant clergy. 
 It would appear that by a subsequent provision, the Legislature of the Province 
 might have pa.«ped a bill, varying th.nt appropriation, provided it lay six werka 
 un the table of Ihe houses of Parliament at home. That was never done ; but in 
 1840, the Parliament passed the hill which is now the law. Now I will address 
 myself to Dr. Burns' remarks. First, with respect to a dominant hierarchy. I 
 deny the possibility ol the granting of certain portions uf hind having anything 
 whatever to do with the establishment of a dominant hierarchy. The very thing, 
 which prevented the endowment of rectories long before they were endowed, was 
 tht difficulty which arose from the circumstance, that the government of this 
 country did not choose to give any authority to rectors out of thoir own church- 
 yard, and out of their own congregation. That was the great obstacle for a length 
 of time, and that was why the government did not choose to do ■ uything which 
 might appear to render the Church ot England in this Province a dominant 
 Church. They granted them lands, as other denominations might hold lands if 
 they could get them ; they granted them in the same manner that they granted 
 lands in Fee Simple to any other person. How, then, can you prove that by 
 establishing rectories, they established a dDminant churchl fc>ome years ago, 
 a member of the Church ol England gave GOO acres of land, in the township of 
 Bayham ; 1 allude to the late Mr. Burwell, who erected the rectory of Port Bnr- 
 ■well, which will phobable be worth :eiO,000 some day. That gentleman endowed 
 a church and rectory there, Does Dr. Burns mean to say, that by endowing that 
 rectory, Mr. Burwell made the rector dominant, except over these 600 acres of land *? 
 JJoes Dr. Burns desire to take away that endowment, or does he noti If gen- 
 tlemen opposite desire this, let them take away everything we have, no matter 
 by whom given. One course would be quite as justifiable as the other. Bui 
 ngain, I ask, does the enuowment of a Rectory make us a dominant church? 
 Why a church is about to be built at Port Dover; within the precincts of that 
 church, I shall in a certain sense be dominant, but shall I therefore be dominant 
 in Port Dover 1 Gentlemen will have a hard task who undertake to prove such 
 a ^iCsiMon. It has been said that when first the subject of Rectories arose, there 
 ■was a greal outci7 against their illegality; and Mr. Roaf has remarked that 
 equity lawyers have proBOunced the patents invalid, because they were granted 
 to a thing, not to an individual. 1 now hold one of these patents in my hand. 
 and it is in strict accordance with the tcirns ot the Act of Parliament of 1891, 
 Let equity lawyers say what they please. I come now to the authority on which 
 ihe patents were granted. Lord Glenelg, in a letter to Mr. Bettridge, stated that 
 the rectories were illegal. He said — 
 
 " On the subject of the erection and endowment of the rectories, Lord GlencIg 
 infers from your letter, that you have mi^apprehended the nature of the objec- 
 tion raised to that measure by the Law Officers of tne Crown. It has no reler- 
 ence to the terms of the patents, but to the power of the Lieutenant Governor 
 to issue such patents at all. Consequently there is no possible amendment of 
 those instruments which would obviate the difficulty," 
 
 Lord Olenelg's opinion was, that there was no power to issue these patents at 
 ajl. Theopinionof Mr. Roaf's equity lawyers was, merely that the instruments 
 were incorrect ; but that opinion is evidently not worth a fig. I have already 
 referred to the act under which Sir John Colborne erected these Roctories. and 
 1 think I have shown that he had power to do so. That law gave to him power 
 " to constitute and erect, within every township or parish which now is or here- 
 alter may be formed, constituted, or erected, within such Province, one or more 
 parsonage or rectory, or parsonages or rectories, according to the esiablifihrncut 
 
 f ■ 
 
 { 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ ;; 
 
 i 
 
 I; 
 
 i 
 
 ■ t . 
 
 il 
 
1 
 
 If? 
 
 
 \'. . Jffiw; 
 
 :f: 
 
 78 
 
 of Ihe Church of England." This seems to be decisive. But lei us suppo.ir that 
 8ir John Colborne overstepped his authority, and actpd without instruc- 
 tions from them — what theni Was he ever impeached for such a vio- 
 tion of 'his public duty as Lieutenant Governor of this Province 1 Is the 
 mistake or fault of a public functionary to be visited upon himself, or upon 
 others'! Suppose for a moment that there was a flaw in the manner in which 
 the act was carried out— that Sir John Colborne made a mistake in issuing the 
 patents — are we to suffer 1 Are the patents to be wrested from usi Should not 
 Sir John Colborne be impeached, rather, lor a violation of public duty 1 But 1 
 deny that he committed either a fault or mistake. I maintain, on the contrary, 
 that in all he did in this matter, he acted in conformity with law. I will now 
 read the letter addressed by Lord Baiiiurst to Mr. Pifsident Smith. 
 
 .. ; . .' , . 1- ^ iM";» I «ui.'' " Datvning Street, Aprilini, 1818. 
 
 '< Sir,— The Bishop of duebec has frequently brought under my con.sideration 
 
 the advantages which would result to the interests of the Church of England, 
 
 in the Province under your government, from the legal establishment of par- 
 
 . ishes or rectories, in conformity with the provision contained in 31. George 
 
 III, c. 31. 
 
 " As I entirely concur with his Lordship in the propriety of adoptine: a measure 
 calculated to give to the Protestant Church in the Canadas, the support which 
 it was in the contemplation of the Parliament of this country to afford it, I 
 have not failed to submit his Lordship's representation to the Prince Regent, 
 and I have received His Royal Highness's commands to instruct you to take 
 the necessary legal m«asurea for constituting and erecting rectories and parishes 
 in every township within the Province under your r "rnment; and you will 
 alsu take care that it be distinctly understood th^i; i onstitution of parishes 
 and rectories can give no claim whatever to any incumbent to receive tithes of 
 , the la,nd within the limits of his parish — all claims of that nature having been 
 effectiially annulled by thejprovision for the support of a Protestant Clergy, 
 made in the 31st of the King, and by the law passed by the Legislature of the 
 Province in 181G. The endowment of the several rectories with these portions 
 of the Clergy Reserves will be necessarily a matter of future consideration ; 
 and until the more general settlement and cultivation of the Province shall 
 have taken place, I consider it advisable that the management of the several 
 Reserves should — as is the case in the Lower Province— be vested in a corpo- 
 rate body, or continue, as at present, under the control of the Lieutenant Gov- 
 ernor and Executive Council. 
 
 "1 have the honor to be, &c., • 
 
 ' Mr. President Smith," 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 Bathurst. 
 
 Here is another letter from Lord Bathurst : ' 
 
 Downing Street; July 22, 1825. 
 
 " Sir,— I have received his Majesty's commands to direct that you do, from time 
 to lime, with the advice of the Executive Council, for the affairs of the Pro- 
 vince of Upper Canada, constitute and erect within every township or paristi 
 which now is, or hereafter may be, formed and constituted or erected, withia 
 the said Province, one or mors parsonages or rectories, according to the estab- 
 lishment of the Church oi England, and that you do from time to time, by an 
 instrument under the great seal of the said Province, endow every such par- 
 aenage or rectory with so much or such part of the land so allotted or appro- 
 priated as aforesaid, in respect of any lands within each township or parislit 
 which shall have been granted subsequently to the commencement of a certain 
 act of the Parliament of Great Britain, passed in the 3lst year of the reign of 
 His late Majesy, King George III, entitled, • An Act to repeal certain parts of 
 an Act passed in the 14th year of His Majesty's reign, an Act for making 
 more effoctual provision for the government of the Province of Gluebec in 
 
 ' North America, and to make further provision for th« government of the saii 
 
tt 
 
 sail 
 wit 
 
 JProrlnce, or of such Innds a^ may be nllottert mul npprnprl.ntcd for (h« same 
 purpoMR, by or in virtue, of any ina<ruction which may have boon j^'ivon by hii 
 late Majesty, before ilie commeneen)ent ot the said Act, as you shall, 
 h the advice o( the said l'\-eculive nonncil, judge to be expedient under ilic 
 cisting circumstances of such township or pariili. 
 " Vou shall also (present to evnry such parsonaife or rectory, an incumhcnt or 
 minister of the Church ol England, who shall have bceri duly ordained ar- 
 cordiii;,' to the riles of said Cimrch; and supply from time to timo such vacan- 
 cies ai» iiioy iiappeu thcreiu. 
 , ,,1 .,' , • .J' "I have the honor, &,c., 
 
 (Sipned^ Bftthurst, 
 
 " Major-Genoral Sir Peregrine Maiiland, K. C. T\., &c." 
 
 Surcjy this is authority enough to satisfy anybody. But, it is said, botli the 
 jrectories and the present appropriation of the Clergy Reserves are at variaiar 
 with the oft-expressed wishes oi the Legislative Assembly. In reply, I have only 
 to ic'ferto the record of the proceedings of that body throe or lour years ago, 
 when the Church of England asked to be allowed to take her share of the Re- 
 serves into her own liands. I wish they had got it. Well, on that occasion a 
 report was presented, stating that the Commiitee to whom the application Jiai! 
 been referred, considered that the question was altogether settled, and that it 
 would be wrong to disturb the eelilenient any further. I will merely add, thai 
 the last two instances in which the opinions of the Legislature have been re- 
 corded, are in ths very teeth of my friend. Dr. liurns. 
 
 Rev. Dr. IIurns — 1 have partially given the authority on which I ground the 
 charge, that there was something like a breach of public faith in the establish- 
 ment of these Rectories, and I now resume the extracts from the Despatch of 
 Lord Glenelg to Sir Francis Bond Head. Lord Clcnelg said: 
 
 "On receiving your Desjiatch of the 17th Dec, it appeared to mc very questi- 
 onable, whether any adequate legal authority existed for the creation and en- 
 dowment of the Rectories. I did not indeed perceiv^e any possible ground for 
 disputing the right of the Lieutenant Governor in (Jouncil to proceed to that 
 measure, it previously sanctioned by the King; but on referring to the com- 
 missions of Lord Aylmcr and Gosford to the general instructions accompany- 
 ing them; to the correspondence between this department and ili'.> Provincial 
 government, afid to the minutes of the Executive Council of the 15th January. 
 1830, it appears to me that no such .sanction had ever been given. The 
 groundsel this opinion you will learn from the accompanying copy ot the 
 communication which 1 thought it necessary to address to the King'.s Advocate, 
 and to the Attorney, and Solicitor General, 
 
 " The Law Officers of the Crown received that reference on the I2'.h April, and 
 reported tome their answer on the 8th ult. The delay is readily accounted for 
 by the great importance of the question, and by the anxiety of His Majesty's 
 legal advisers to oJfer no immature judgment on such an occasion. I enclose 
 lor your inf«rmation a copy of their report. You will find that theydecla.e 
 their opinion to be, that the erection and endowment of the lifiy-seven llecto- 
 rios by Sir John Colburne, are not valid and lawful acts." 
 
 Six months before the date of the document on which tliL- Provincial Conncil 
 proceeded in setting up these Rectories, Lord Goderich, (Lord Ripon) addressed 
 a Despatch, in which the Provincial Legislature were invited to exert their 
 power to vary or repeal, and were expressly recommended to repeal those 
 clauses of the act which relate to the endowment of Rectories, The net re- 
 quires a specific Despatch — a specific deed of the King in Council, authoriz- 
 ing the Lieutenant Governor to griint and endo"- the Rectories. But Lord 
 Goderich's Despalcli of April, 1832, which forms the basis on which the Exec- 
 Titive Council established the Rectories, was marked confidential : and it would 
 therefore appear to be impossible that f^ord Goderich could have designed to 
 ponvey to the Lieutenant Governor the King's sanction for neutralizing the repeal 
 
>»/^ 
 
 1 1 
 
 '.'I' t 
 
 V.i 
 
 IB 
 
 which bis LordnlilphaJ recommended a few month* previomly. Thlnclroum- 
 •tance clearly indicates to my mind, tliat the KKKciiiive Council put a forced ani 
 an erruneuas construction upon L^rd Qoderlcli'H DoHpatch. I will now read ih-s 
 principal portion of the message which Sir John Colborne sent to the Assem'jl/ 
 of Upper Canada : 
 
 •• His Majesty has with no lew antioty considereil how far such an appropria- 
 tion of territory is conducive, either to the temporal welfare ot the minister-j oi" 
 religion in this I'rovince, or to tiieir spiritual intiuence. Bound no less by hii 
 personal feelings, than by thesacrod obligations of that station to which Provi- 
 dence has called him, to watch over the intorcsis of all iha Protestant churches 
 within his dominions, his Majesty could never consent to abandon those inter- 
 ests with a view to any objects of temporary and apparent expediency. 
 
 It has therefore been with peculiar satisfaction, that in the result of his enqulrlei 
 into this subject, his Majesty has found that the changes sou;?ht fi>r by no larg*. 
 a proportion of the inhabitanti* of this Province, may be carried into effect 
 withnit sacrificing the just claims of the churchesofl'^iigland and Scotland. 
 The waste lands which have been set apart as a provision for the clerjjy oi 
 those venerable bodifs, have hitherto yielded no disposable revenue. The pe- 
 riod at which they might reasonably be expected to becomcj more productive it 
 still remote, llis Majesty has solid grounds for entortaining the hope that; be- 
 fore the arrival of that period, it m\y be found practicable to atford the clergy 
 of those chun.hes, such a reasonable and moderate provision as may be neces- 
 sary for enabling them properly lo discharge their sacred functions." 
 
 The changes sought for by so large a proportion of the people, in reference lo 
 Ihe Clergy ilcserves, " may be carried into etfcct," his Majesty fixind, without 
 injury to the church. What were these sought-for changes'? To appropriate 
 the Reserves to secular education, or other general purposes- Sir J. Colborne 
 concludes thus : 
 
 " His AA.ijesty, therefore, invites the house of Assembly of Upper Canada, to 
 consider iiow the powers given to the l*ravincial Legislature by the con:ttitu- 
 tional act, to vary or repeal this part of its provisions, can be called into exer- 
 cise most advantageously, for the spiritual and temporal interests of his Ma- 
 jesty's faithlul subjects in this ProvirKie." 
 
 This was sent in January, 1832; lii another Dispatch to which Lord Glenelg 
 refers, the same vit;w was exhibited. In the face of all this, the confidential Dis- 
 patch came out, within three months, and upon it th? Executive Council proceed- 
 ed. Our friends refer to the other Dispatch, dated, Downing Street, 'iin^i July, 
 ltJ*25. The Hon. Peter Robinson, and those who sat with him in, ihn Council, 
 nerer dreamed of going back to this Dispatch, until they found that action on thj 
 confidential Dispatch was no longer tenable. When that discovery was made, a 
 search was instituted, and these two dwuments were brought to light. In the 
 meantime what was done/ Lord Glenelg submitted the whole matter to the law 
 advisers of the Crown, whose opinion — dated, 8th June, I8i>7 — was as follows : — 
 
 ' We are of opinion that the Lieutenant governor, with the advice of the Execu- 
 livi' Council, could not lawfully constitute and erect or endow any parsonagj 
 or rectory within the Province, without the further signification of tiis Majes- 
 ty's pleasure. 
 
 "Sf?condly — we are of opinion that Lord Ripon's Dispatch of the 5th of April, 
 1832 cannot be regarded as signilying his Majesty's pleasure for the erection 
 of parsonages, or for the endowment of them, or for either of those- purposes. 
 
 "Thirdly — we are of opinion, that the erection and the endo',vm:?nt of the fifty- 
 •liven rectories, by Sir John Colborn<j, are noi valid and lawful acts." 
 
 This was the first opinion ; but U is proper to notic'i that Lord Bathur.st's Dis- 
 patch toSir P. M.iitland, eleven years before, was never acted upon, norattempte (. 
 10 be acted upoa ; Sir Percgiine had been withdrawn; the throne had been vaca- 
 Itfd, and a new goveraittsnt was in existence. A nsw Dispatch was essential 1/ 
 
70 
 
 nrcetMTj. A very preat change In public opinion had alreaily lakon place during 
 these eleven yean— a chan:{«! ([nite »iutliciet»l U) r(MiiU;r a distinct renewal of au- 
 thority necessary. What in still more remarkable ia, that various xiatcmcntH 
 and communlcatloBs had in the naeantiine been mada by thegovcrnrneiii athunvj 
 to the government herr, indicatinjj this clian^t* ol' sentiment. Lord Guderich, 
 writing to Sir J. Colborne, 8th November, [S'.l2, said— 
 
 "With ri'spcct to the charije ot'shewiny; an undue preference to preachers of 
 religion bel.>n({int,' to the i;.Nial)lishod churches of this countrv, it is so utterly 
 at varience wi;h tlic whole course of p(»lipy which it has been tho object of an/ 
 Dispnithes to yourself to prescribe, that 1 cannot pause to repel ii in any for- 
 mal manner." 
 
 So jealous was the ♦jovcrnmcnt in iho.«e days of interfering wiih the ri^^hts of 
 U»e people here, that they expressly prohibitivl any attempt to invest literary or 
 religious corporations with peculiar privilcijos, without the sentiments of the Le- 
 gislature of the I'rovincc being asccnained. In view of this, I would submit that 
 the erection of rectories must bu huld as invaliil. Lord Glcnelg, however, Iclt it 
 his* duty to submit tliese nowly-discovcred Dispatches to the same emiiient council, 
 whose second opinion was given on the '21th January, iH.S8. It was thus: — 
 " We are of opinion : 1, That the Lieutenant-governor, with the advice of tha 
 Kxecutive (jouncil, could lawfully constiiuie and erect or endow any parsonage 
 or rectory, within tho Province, with )ut the further si!»nincaiit»n ol his Maje'*- 
 ty's pleasure, ti. Wo are of o:)itiio:i thut Lord Ripr»n;s Dispatch, of the 5th 
 April 1833, cannot bf regarded as sigiiitying his Majesty's pleasure, for the 
 erection of parsonages, or for the cnilowuient of them, oi tc»r eitlicr of those 
 purposes. 3, We are of opinion that the erection or endowment of ftlty-sevea 
 re-tories, by Sir John Colborne, are valid and lawful acts. We are of opinion 
 that the rectors of the parishos so erected and endowed, have tho same eccles- 
 iastical authority within their respective limits, as are vested in the rectors of 
 a parish in England." 
 
 This was signed by J. Dodgson, J. Campl)ell, R. M. rtolie — the same council 
 who but a few months before had given an opinion directly contrary to-tliis. With 
 all respect to these eminent men, I prefer tost ic!{ to their first o[»mion. Homc'imett 
 we appeal Iroin mtfn intemperate to men saber. I would do so in this case. Thoir 
 tirst thoughts were best — better than their second ones. And on the ground wbicli 
 these gentlemen theuLselves assumed, 1 say we are bound to m^nintain that thj 
 whole of the rectory patents are invalid. The will of the people nay regulat^j 
 deeds of the Council, and whatever maybe the value even of a Royal patent, 
 there is a power felt and indicated by the country, or Province, which can vary 
 or repeal such a patent. Although, therefore, 1 believe that &i eminent lav^ver* 
 whose opinioBs 1 have quoted, were a good deal inttuf-nced by a feeling of deli- 
 cacy — particularly as ihe question had to do with a female Sovereign, who had 
 just ascended the throne — 1 feel convinced that if their second oninion were now 
 brought before the Judges in England, de novo, it would be found to have been 
 pronounced on imperfect and ex piirte information. [ Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. P. EvAN's — Dr. Hiii-ns says he will have Philip vvhen tipsy.— I'll hav; 
 Philip whf^n sjber. A woman once went before Philipof Macedon for a decisioi 
 which he gave : " I'll ap-).^al," she said. " To whom dare vou appc%'il 1" demand- 
 r<| the tyrant. " P^rom Philip intoxicated to Philip sober," was the r-ply. \y\\ 
 Burns says in effect, that he will appeal from Philip sober to Philip iutoxicat<.u 
 
 Rev, Dr, Buh.vs.— lie wa.s sober first. 
 
 Rev. F. Ev.4Ns.— Lot us lay bantering aside, and come to fact and arsruraent 
 We are told that because the Governor General leceivtd aconhdeniial Dispatc i 
 and because this was acted upon by the Executive Council, there was a violalio^v 
 of public faith. That i.s new doctrine, and seems to me to be altogether unteu- 
 teuable. Again; it is a mistake to say there are fifty-seven rectories. I •<•>;-.,;» 
 ibere w^re so many. Can any gentleman say exactly how raaay have been cu- 
 Uuwed ? 
 
 1 1 
 
Ik 
 
 I 
 
 II » 
 
 11 
 
 m 
 
 , ■ ■ s 
 
 • 80 
 
 '•" Ren. Dr. Burns.— First there were forty-four ; and to those additions hhve 
 teen made. ■ -^ ■ • 
 
 Rev. F. EvANs.—Not one, I am sorry to say. Now let me recur to wh^t has 
 been said about Lord Bathtirst's Dispatch being iorgottcn, and not acted 
 upon for eleven years. The diiTiculty arose out of this circiunstance that Sir P. 
 Maiiland wished to endow rectories, and a strong ctibrt was raad« to have these 
 — not rectories, but — parislies. The object was, not only that a certain portion of 
 of land should be granted for the glebes, but that, alon£? witli this, a territorial 
 boundary siiould bo granted. To this, certain individuals objected. Strong ob- 
 jections were particularly made by Sir J. Colborne, who felt that it was his duty 
 to consult public opinion, and he knew that the course proposed would give great 
 olTence to the pc ,)le of the Province; although, if it had been adopted, 1 uor't 
 see how it could have been got over The arrangement would have stood as well 
 in law, as the restories stand now. But Sir J. Colborne thought that it ought not 
 to be adopted, notwithstanding the contrary opinions of several members of his 
 Council. He would not yield, neither would these members of the Council; anti 
 :ney went on in this way, discussing the aubject,, for sevf ral years. Ultimately, 
 and lastly, before Sir J. Colborne left the Province, the parties agreed, and I 
 think wi-sely, because I am decidedly ot opinion that if Sir J. Colborne hod not 
 endowed these rectories, it was not at all likely Sir F. B Head would have done 
 ISO. Sir John Colborne's ace was in th" nick of time. But we had been in pos- 
 session of these lands several years. In 1831, I was in po^^scssion of all the land 
 I hold as rectorial — every acre of it. It was set apart as a glebe ; and so it wss 
 with respect to all other parishes, I had a provisional lease, leaving to me those 
 very lands for a term of '2x years, with the proviso titat whenever his Majesty 
 ?ihoiild see fit to appoint or endow a rectory within the said township of Woou- 
 iiouse, the Rev. F. Evans, or any other person holding that lea.^e, should imme- 
 diately relinquish the same, in order to its bei'ig applied to the endowment of the 
 r' ctory. So that although Sir J. Col jorne carried out the point of law, the deett 
 ■was, in point of fact, done several years be'cre. This shows that although the 
 command ot Loru Bathurst was not carried into effect until the time when the 
 rectories were constituted, the anhnus — tne intention — remained with the govern- 
 ment; the intention being to endow rectories when that end conM be properly 
 accomplished. At last, -t was accomplished. This, then, is the whole head and 
 Iront of our otience. This is what we have done. First of all, we accepted the 
 lands, and were told that by and by we should be endowed. By and by we were 
 endowed, and we hold the endowment to this day. Yet we are told, fors-'Oth, that 
 the thing was done contrary to public faith, and at variance with the express wish 
 of the Legislative assembly ! Now a large proportion of the people of this Pro- 
 vince are members of the Church of England. They number, at a rough guess, 
 171,000; some say they amount to 200,000. This is a large proportion — say one- 
 third — of the whole population. Is the opinion of ihis one third to be entirely 
 ignoreti, merely because they are the minority % Is this the principle of the Bri- 
 tish Constitution, or that v.'hich is to be acted upon here ? We know there is a 
 parly died < ..'ar Grits. They, I believe, are a minority ; but they have never- 
 theless a publi: opinion, which is attended to by a great many persons. What 
 would they think of the doctrine that their opinion should have no weight, be- 
 cau.se they ari a minority? It will and ought to have weight ; and surely yu-i 
 will not deny the same to the members of the Ch;ircli of England, numerous' a*^ 
 1 have shown them to be. Jn i'^nglaiicl, the minoiity — the " opposition, as they 
 are i 'rmed — form a recognized inrrredient in the constitn ion ; and is the prinriple 
 to be discarded in this portion of t)ic British Empire 1 is no regard to be paid to 
 the wishes or wants of one-third of the whole population ? We have not arrived 
 at that point yet, 1 hope, Now, with respect to taking away the lleserves alto- 
 gether : '.Vhey were granted tc is because we were io have no tithes. But, you 
 say, yo'.; will alienate them from the Churches of England and Scotland. Well, 
 what have you to get, to gi.-e us ill exchange? Let Ihe government, ifdesirou*? 
 (jf this change, come lorward with a jiroposal to ^ive uv an equivalent, in con'^id- 
 
1 jiiijipiiii(tjii|^5fP'jWIVr 
 
 n 
 
 oration of surreaderioig tlie Reserres. We are willi-ng again to come to terms 
 if you will give us an equiralent. Are we to have titues back agaia 1 I'd rather 
 not. What then are we to rely upon 1 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burns. — The afTections ©f your people. 
 
 Rev. P. Evans. — We can secure them without any aid from government. We 
 are under no compact with government in respect of that. And while fully ap- 
 preciating the affections of our people^ we may with perfect propriety ask, what, 
 arrangement is the Government prepared to enter into, if we surrender the Re- 
 serves! we hold them by a safe tenure. It does not afiect our right to tell us 
 that Secretaries of State have contradicted themselves, or that Attorney Gener- 
 als have stultified their own decisions, we know all this, and cannot pretend to 
 help it; we know further, however, that a constitutionally-appointed peT)sion has 
 been granted to us, and we believe there is no power which can justly deprive us 
 of it. [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. J, Richardson. — The first remark 1 shall make is this-^That the De- 
 spatch from Lord Glenelg and Lord Ripon, read by Dr. Burns, in my opinion 
 annul the previous despatches of Lord Bathurst in 1825 and 1818, Upon tliese 
 despatches these gentlemen profess to gr:"nd the legal right of the Gov^rno'- to 
 endow these rectories. Observe, that the llxecutive Council — whose minute iias 
 been read— whf*n ihey advised the Governor to establish the Rectories, referred, 
 not to the despatches of Lord Bathurst at ail, but to the despatch of Lord God- 
 erich. Now what is that despatch? 1 will read some extracts that will show 
 I'learly that his Lordship advised Sir J. Colborne to provide Jor the salarie'^ of 
 Iht two Archdeacons o! York and Kingston out of a certain sum of money, 
 which is mentioned as having accumulated from the Revenues of the Province : 
 he found that he had £4000 surplus money after paying the Archdeacons,— this 
 X4003 coming out of the Casual and Teriloiial Revenue. It is in reference to 
 this £4000 that Lord Goderich directs Sir J. Colborne to provide forparishcs, &c, 
 The despatch from which I read is dated 6th April, 1833, 
 
 *' There will be abundant means of meeting all the demands for salaries, includ- 
 ing the two Archdeacons, for which I had intended to provide, A (|ucstion there- 
 tore naturally arises as to the mo.st advantageous mode of disposing of the XlOOO 
 to be taken out of the Casual and Territorial Revenue, which had been destined 
 to this particular service, which will no longer be required for that purpose. — 
 I have considered with great attention the observations contained in your 
 private letter of February 16th, and the propositions which result from them ; 
 and I am happy to find that your practical views, founded upon personal know- 
 ledge and experience, are so coi.icident with those upon a mere speculative 
 view I had been led to entertain." 
 
 His Lordship went on to say— 
 
 "£4000 in the whole will be disposable; and I willingly leave it lo your discre- 
 tion to decide as to the proportionate distribution of that sum. 1 am well aware 
 that in the execution of this duty, you will have to steer a tliffiniit course, and 
 that it will require no small tact to determine by what practi'.;.. means these 
 important objects can be best attained," 
 
 Again — 
 
 "It cannot be forgotten that the condition of society in such a countrr as TTpp?r 
 Canada presents ditiiculties in thepurauits of this object which are v^ry .sermu.''', 
 and that a state of religious peare is above all tl:in;:rs essential in establishing 
 in the minds of the people the efficacy of religious principles," 
 
 not mv time so limited, I would rend the whole despatch. The nse I 
 it is this— that the authority upon which Sir J, Colborne's E.xecuti/e 
 
 Were 
 make of 
 
 Council grounded the establishment of tlio'ie Rectories was dr.iwn, not upon tiie 
 previous despatches of Lord Bathurst (and certainly they must have known that 
 
 4 
 
7 
 
 m 
 
 
 I!' 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 i: 
 
 T I 
 
 
 83 
 
 those despatches existed), but from this letter or despatch of Lord Godcrlch, whieh 
 1 maintain, gave them no authority. He says he adrises the Gorernor to appor* ' 
 tion a part of that i;4000 /rorn the Casual and Territorial Rerenue to aid this ' 
 work, and then, that it might be advisable to appropriate a certain moderaia 
 ]wrtion of land for increasing the comfort of Rectors. Now here is the point.— 
 The Governor proceeded viiher on the despatches of Lord Bathurst or on this 
 despatch, It appears that he proceeded on this despatch : and what does Lord 
 Glenelj say in relation to this subject ? There had been doubts aslothe legality 
 — or rather as to the regularity of the establishment of these Rectories, Lord. 
 Glenelg in a despatch to Sir George Arthur, dated 26th December, 1837, said;— 
 
 " How far the view originally taken by the law officers of the Crown may b« 
 altered when they shall have maturely considered the subject, &c." 
 
 Again — 
 
 " Although the endowment of the Rectories in the year 1836 did not take plae« 
 with the previous concurrence or knowledge of the present ministers of th« 
 Crown, yet, as ihey appear to have been made at least under a presumed 
 authority from the Secretary of State, and as considerable time hao now elapsed 
 since the parties were put in possession of ihe lands, I should regret to be com- 
 pelled to disturb that settlement, or to dispossess the Clergy of the Church of 
 England of the lauds which have been assigned for their maintenance." 
 
 I think a minister of the Crown need not apprehend being called upon to dig- ,, 
 >urb the setli<*ment, if he had not power. But Lord Glenelg felt that he had a ; 
 power which he might be cailed on to exercise, but he would regret the occasiott 
 after the Rectories had been so long established. The Rectors had been so long ' 
 in possession of their lands, that he did not like the idea of being cailed on tv , 
 disturb them. Now that is clearly an admission that he might have been cooa- 
 pelled to dispossess them. His Lordship added ; — 
 
 '^ Should the legal right now appear to the law officers of the Crown to be ind«- 
 leasible, no practical question will of course remain for the decision of iIm 
 grovernment." 
 
 Rev. W. Bet idge. — Just so. 
 
 Rev. J. Richardson' — I was aware thai gentleman opposite would catch that. 
 But it 80 happens that we have the law ofiicers of the crown versus the law officers of 
 the crown, and it remains to be seen which opinion is right and which wrong. Wh4t 
 are the terms of our proposiiion ? "That the fifty-seven rectories were estabiishfd i>i 
 violation of the public faith." Now in a previous despatch from i^ord Goderich hi 
 Sir J Colborne, dated Novembers, 1832, the following passages occur — 
 
 '• With respect to the charge of showing an undue preference to the teachers «f 
 religiou belonging to the established church of this country, it is so utterly nt 
 variance with the whole course of policy which it has been the object t>f my 
 Despatches to yourself to prescribe, that I cannot pause to repel it in any foriatl 
 manner." . , n 
 
 " His MHJosty has studiously abstained from the exercise of his undoubted pre- 
 rogative of endowing literary or reliaious corporations, until he should obtain tb* 
 advice of the representatives of the Gunadian people for his guidance in that rei- 
 pect." 
 
 JVom thi^ and other Despatches which 1 tiave not time to refer to (but which may 
 be referred to by any who hear me, as they are in the official commuHications. ) The 
 peopi'. of this country, were led to believe that it was the intention of his Majesty 
 and Governmoat not to appropriate these reserves, without the knowledge and 
 eonsf nt of the pcop!o of Canada, expressed through their constituted authorities ia 
 parliament ; and thai e.xpectation was so strong tliat vvtien it was announced that 
 tUese rectories had been established, the circums'.anco excited (we may say) a burst. 
 «f iiidig'iatioa from differeni parties. I shall refer t» soms «xpressionfl in regard t* 
 
 it 
 
 oj 
 
 £ 
 
 u 
 
 e 
 
 « 
 
8» 
 
 h. Th« firat is an extract from theChristian Gaatiian, czpresaive of the tentimcnta 
 of the body it repreienta, then under the editorial management of the Rev. Ephraiin 
 llfana. Mr. Evans was a man so thoroughly loyal in feeling and so strong in hie 
 attachment to constituted authority, that the expression of opinion which I am about 
 t« quote must have t«eu dragged from him. On the 6th April, 1636, he said— 
 
 •♦ We have learned with extreme regret, that His Excellency Sir John Colborne 
 ^ns thought proper, during the latter part of his administration ofthd aflfairs of this 
 province, to talte a step which we are confident, will meet with th^ strongrst 
 disapprobation of ninei?en*twenlieth8 of its inliabilants, and which will have a 
 f,'reater tendency to create discontent than any other act of his administration. IVe 
 iJlude to the establishment of rectories, to the number of furir-four, each with an 
 endowment of from 1U5 to 800 acres of 'loergy Reserves, same including valuable 
 Town lots, as will be seen by the Schedule which we publish to-day. The valu* 
 of the endowments is not so much the subject ofanimadversion, as the principle in- 
 yolved in the act itself, — a principle directly opposed to the known wishes of the 
 country, and, in our opinion directly at variance with its religious interests. 
 Aiter the repeated expression of the opinions of his Majesty's subjects in this colo- 
 ny, against the establishment of any church with exclusive rights and privilegee— 
 opinions expressed time alter time in the addresses Irom the popular branch of the 
 Legislature, in which all parties have been nearly unanimous, und in numerous* 
 )y signed petitions to bis Majesty's government and the Imperial Parliament, 
 aupported by Christians of every donominatioii, including a verv respectable por- 
 tion of the members of the Church of England — we had been led to entertain a 
 hope almost amountingf to certainty, that uu attempt would be made to force upoa 
 this Country an established religion." 
 
 We'll low come a little nearer home to some gentlemen present. Here is an e«- 
 %ract from the Niagara Christian Ezainincr, edited by the Rev. Mr. Magill, ofihe 
 established Church of Scotland, who, after having stated the ill-judged act of establish- 
 ing the rectories, observed — 
 
 •' Such is the act of the government, and such are the pretensions of its high 
 ehurch Hivorilesi. Can it ba deemed surprising that public api)rei;;<»3ion has bee« 
 awakened ? — that public indignation i? roused ? — that constitutional resistance is 
 resolved u|)on ? — ll)at all who wish the peace and prosperity of the country de- 
 clare their deliberate juajmi-nt thai this rash and surreptitious act must be cancel- 
 led — this root of biUeriioss iijustbe drawn out even to its minutest fibres, and cast 
 into the sea of oblivion. ' 
 
 *' Year ifler year, at least during the lasv ilocadc, the general sentiment of thie 
 colony has been uttered in no unequivocal form, that no church invested with ex- 
 clusive privile^res derived from tlio state, is adapted to the condition ot socielj 
 among us. Itcamiot be doubted, that thirMs the deliberate conviction of nine- 
 lenths of the colonists. J^xcept ainon? a few ambitious magnates of the Church 
 of England, we never hear a contrary sentiment breathed. Equal rights on equal 
 •onditioiis, is the general ury, and althoniiii several asse'nblymerx of the preseai 
 House have chosen to misialor|iret the public voice, and to advocate a different 
 principle, we doubt not that on their next appearance before their constituents, 
 ihey will be taught thattliis is not the age, nor this the country, in which the 
 grand principle of equal rights can be departed from with impunity." [Time 
 expired j 
 
 Rev. W. BeTTRiDOK — We are much obliged to the last Rev. gentleman for giv- 
 ing ua the opinions of Mr. Magill and Mr. Ryerson. Do you know the opinion ot 
 ihe rector of Woodstock, whose opinion is ^s good a? that of either 7 
 
 Rev. J. RicUARisoN — Not Mr. Ryerson, but Mr. E; hraiin Evans. 
 
 Rev. W. Bkttkidgk — I knew and had a high respect for Mr. Evans, with regari 
 lo Mr. M;ij(ill, I atn somewhat surprised that he shouM have taken advantai,'e of tlje 
 •ppoai.iou to the Church of England h* that limo, fur 1 have before me a !o..g ti»i •; 
 
 !^l; 
 
■JW.»lf,W"jhpWT» 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 i *" 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ■a 
 
 Wr 
 V 
 
 I; 
 
 
 eiidowmf nta of the Church of Scotland, made previoas to iheso rectorica in Kiugston» 
 in Belleville, Perth, Dundas, Toronto, and other places. That aeema rather odd, 
 and even !ny friend Mr. Donald McKenzie,of the Free Kirk of Scotland, is in pos* 
 ke«8ioa of 200 ucres of land, which he obtained before leaving the Church of Scot* 
 land. He has il in Zona. He and I have lived neighbours seventeen years, and I, 
 hope he will live there seventeen years longer; but, aa I have said, although a miu'- 
 ister of the Free Kirk, he enjoys 200 acres of land. There are two and a half miU 
 !ions of acres, and all this great grievanot (of course, apart from the principle of the 
 ihing j is, that the Church of England haa got— how much do you think ? why about 
 37,000 acres. 
 
 Kov. W. Okmston — How many had she sold before 1840? 
 
 Rev. VV. BKn-RiDCF. — We are now on the rectories, and do not try to get me off 
 my text. The deluy that was occasioned in these endowments have already beeti 
 partially stated by Mr. Evans ; but aa 1 had a little finger in the jjie, 1 can state 
 to you that a deputation of members of the Church of England from the west, went 
 to Sir J. Colborne, with an eai:i?st request. This was at the latter end of 1834, or 
 in the beginning of lti35 ; and our request was that he would proceed to carry out 
 ihc consiitutional act, und.r the authority wnich he possessed Sir J. Colborne 
 knew the contents of Lord (Jathurst's Despatch very well. 1 and three others form- 
 ed the deputation, and we pressed the subject on him ; mA had he not been thwar- 
 ted in his Council by tho.«e who were not friends of the Church of England, there 
 can be no question that we should have had — as Mr. Lafontaine says we ought to 
 have had — 500 rectories insiead of fifty. With respect to the Despatch from Lord 
 (iroderich in 1832, which I believe was confidential — are we to suppose 
 that it supersi^ded — or implied forgotfulness — of the ofiiciul, ]>ublic Despatch 
 from Lord Baihurst in 1835 ! if we are, it is a new doctrine, recollect, it is not 
 merely from Lord Hathurst that the Despatch came, for he wrote by the express 
 command of liis Majesty in Council as.'^onibled, and he said that these rectories were 
 to be e.stahlt.sliod. And yet because Loid Goderich wrote a private Despatch, gentle- 
 men would have il go before the oilier. There can be very little question as to the 
 validity of tho two. Tho public, at all events, will be enabled to judge. But we 
 iiro arL'uing lo very little i)urpose. 1 think that gentlemen oppoi.ii« have not met 
 the difficulty in their case. There it stands, great as ever. In an appeal made last 
 year (I think) to the Crown authorities in this colony, with lespect to the validity of 
 ilieso patents (and I had two or three with me). Mr. Latent line remarked, "It has 
 boeu broadly asscrtod that there has been collusion in the obtaining of these pa- 
 tents, but ihu.-; far 1 Inave found no proof of it. Of course, if collusion be detected, 
 the pau-nts will be i;jj.o/rtd« invalid ; but since 1 have had the honour of holding 
 otlice here, I can assure vou we have looked rather sharply after the business, and 
 vet we have found no flaw — no collusion — that can shake your rectories." Her 
 ftlajesty's ministers in this prnvice cannot be suspected of being over favoiable to 
 the Church of England, and yet their chiol man thus declared to me that, after the 
 most careful search, they had been unable to find anything that cotald invalidate the 
 title, or shake tho foundation of our rectories. After such an expression oi opinion, 
 i went home very well satisfied. liut still we poor rectors have pretty hard lives to 
 lead, inconsequence of the ho^itile feeling with which we have lo contend. I am 
 greatly pleased to find rhat a dille'roiit spirit animates the gentlemen opposite, and 1 
 trust thai when this discussion is over, tlifV will toll their congregations that we 
 rectors are not such bad bodies after all. 1 am sorry to say that the spirit which pre- 
 vails at Woodstock is extremely inimical toward us — not to me personally, but to 
 ir.e as a rector of the Church of England, at Woodstock, we have a lot of five acres, 
 deeded some 2.5 years ai^o, for the purpose of erecting thereon a church and parson- 
 age. It was given to the late Biirtiop oi Quebec, but under the Church Temporalitie* 
 act is ve.sled in ine and my Church-waidens. A cliurch had been built by i)riva;^ 
 subscription. A rectory had been built which is now tumbling down, atid I believe 
 1 shall have to flee to my people to build me a rectory on the five acres. We'l, we 
 have put a fence round these tive acres, &ud we have got a crop on the ground ; but 
 
'.T^Tw.^.-^f 'y^ (r»jTIW.7T^T 
 
 85 
 
 there are certain persons who declare that they won't let us hare the five acres at 
 bII— and the fence is nearly pulled down, and the crop— which would at all events 
 have been advantageous to me — is well nigh destroyed. I do not complain about th« 
 loss of the 500 bushels of oais which might be 'here, but I dislike the spirit which 
 
 Erompts these proceedings ; it is not kind— it ia not christian. Tlicae live acres, 
 e it remembered, were government reserves, not clergy reserves. The Free Kirk, 
 at tbis present time, has got fi-om the government Hvp acres on the very same plot 
 for a church yard ; we allow them to keep it, and I hope their dead will rest in 
 peace there. The Methodists have got three or four acres, and hold them in peace. 
 The established church of Scotland and other denominations have rfceived similar 
 grants. But the poor rector of Woodstock can't hold five acres, although I have 
 iield them by patent from the crown for 25 year.s. 1 may appear to smile while I 
 ^peak of this matter, but my s.nilo has sorrow at its bottom. For surely this is not 
 the proper way to act. What you do, do constitutionally, and without violeiice, 
 until you can dispossess the rector of Woodstock — and constitutionally dispossess 
 him — let him live peaceably amongst yon ; do not go sneaking by night to harrass 
 and destroy his private pioperty. Do not coine and attack him rudely because he 
 preaches the gospel of Jesus Cnrist in a ciiurch il i Here nt from your own. I hold my 
 patent from the crown, and uutil that patent be declarod invalid, allow me in peace 
 to enjoy the results of my labours. If the piiiliament or the crown declares that 1 am 
 wrong, I will yield, and shall try to yield with the grace of a chrisitan. I uust I 
 .shall have grace to do it. You shall hear ni) complaint from my mouth. Wo hav« 
 lo3l two-thirds of the Reserves, and if it be Lho will of the nation that we shall loost 
 the other I will bow respecifully to the law. There shall be no agitation on our part, 
 because we believe tha», the powers that be are ordained of God. Unhappy will \yn 
 that period, because we shall be warped greatly in the humble efforts wo are making 
 to carry to our own people the knovvlege of the truth as it is in Jesus. I know that 
 the thcught that we are an established churcli, rankles in the breasts of many They 
 think wo are, or seem to be, a little above others, 1 feel nothing of that kind. Two 
 gentlemen are liero from Woodstock, and let tliein be asked as to any efforts 1 mak* 
 to obtain tho dominancy which has been spoken of. They aro before me, and I ask 
 them whether William Bettridge, rector of Woodstock ever exorcised any dominancy 
 over the faith of any man. Seventeen years have I been diore, and I have never intru- 
 ded myself into the house of any man uncalled ; but I have gone to visit those of any 
 other denominations who desired to have my ministerial st-i vices. 1 have gone to 
 them, but I have never attempted to proselytise. I defy any man to say that 1 over 
 took advantage of moments like that. I have another duty to discharge — to lead 
 them to Christ: that was my duty, and I confined myself to it. Sometimes 1 have 
 acted in cases of this nature in the absence of the parties own minister. For instance, 
 in the absence of Mr. Ball, minister of the Free Kirk, 1 was sent to attend a member 
 of his congregation. I did attend, but immediately the minister returned I said I 
 1 had done so and so, and I expressed a hope that he would do so in my absence. [ 
 have attended sever il members of the Church of Scotland. One oi these individuala 
 about a fortnight before her death, expressed a wish that I should visit her, but I 
 said, •' not without Mr. Ball's permission, I wrote to Mr. Ball, and he immediately 
 replied, " Do go — I entreat you to go." I went three or four times, and at her own 
 request shft was buried by mo. She was a sainted woman. Well, did I ever take 
 advantage of my visits to turn her from her faith ? No. I knew she was on tb« 
 right foundation, and would bo right at the last day. We are not, then, a dominant 
 chucrh ; and 1 am sure that the gentlemen opposite have too much liberal feeling 
 to basethoir opposition to ih'i Cliijrch of England on the supposition that we ar« 
 dominant, or atfect anything like domjnancy. The laws of the land would not 
 permit this domlnnncy, and my own feelings would not permit it. Into no man's 
 hougie do I go unlefls sent for except to the houses of members of my own congregation. 
 But, on the other lartd, 1 am rather averse to other ministers going unasked into my 
 c«»agregatiun. K:mo iMimpunn lacessU. Do not try to trench on me. We have 
 pl«nty to do in oar dOToral vocations : let an attend to our own people. These are 
 
)1 
 
 ■'.) 
 
 'A 'I 
 
 i 
 
 UK''. 
 
 Ir 
 
 m 
 
 tfiithi we are ready to declare, aqd we do them bpenly before the world. If to? hf 
 difidual here can say that we have trenched on the private rights or feelinipi of anf 
 man, we will atand accused before God and the country of falaehood. Onr friend 
 from the east (Mr. Ormston,) who was pleased to pay a compliment to the west, la« 
 fall one little expression which I did not like. It was this— that we are afiaid to 
 arate matters ; it would not do to state them— it would not be quite right he aaid. 
 Wow I reply in the words of the Bard of Avon, on whose waters 1 was born- 
 Mi (]are do and say all that becomes a man— 
 Who dare do more is none." 
 Wherever we may be, you will not find the Rector of Woodstock giving ofTenca to 
 any man. But if an expressson of my opinion be required, on a matter connected 
 with public morals, whether it be before twenty or five thousand, you shall have it, 
 without fear, favor, or reward. [Time expired.] • 
 
 Rev. F. EvAifs — 1 think we need not occupy time with a discuseion of the next 
 proposition on the list. Parliament being omnipotent, in a politicnl seaeo, 1 decline 
 to take up the fifth proposition on my side, and I agree to the truth of the aixth 
 proposition as laid down by gentlemen on the other side. 
 
 Rev; J. WlNTEUBOTHAM — If our friends do not wish to discuss the proposition 
 which they have laid before the public, we do not think it right to bow to their 
 dictation with regard to loying aside ours. A defined understanding on the matter 
 is before the public. We shall discuss our sixth proposition, let them do what they 
 please with theirs. 
 
 Rev. W. Ormstojt— Although I was anxious to say something on this subject, I 
 must confesB that it seems stranRe to discuss a question which is conceded. If tho 
 worthy Rector of Woodhouse will add *' without manifest injustice" to our propo- 
 sition, and then say that he concedes it, I shall be satisfied. 
 
 Rev. F. Evans — " The Imperial and Provincial Parliamenta have power to ap- 
 propriate the Clergy Reserves." 
 
 Rev. W. OnMSTON — Without any injustice. 
 
 Rev. F. Evans — Oh, no ! That is not in your proposition. 
 
 Rev. W. Ormston — You undertook to show that to do this would be '• manifest 
 injustice." We can't say that. 
 
 Rev. F. Evans — We have nothing to bring forward but what has already been 
 brought forward. You bring forward a statement, which, as it standa, we adroit. — 
 Why debate it then ? 
 
 Rev, Dr. Burns — Neither of our friends appears to take that solemn view of the 
 magnitude of the principle involved in this proposition, that they ought to do. We 
 have not discussed it at ail. We have discussed ibe question in regard to the term 
 •* protestant clergy" — wo have discussed the claims of the Church of England, in 
 reference to an act of rarliament — but there is still this important question. Is it 
 right, ic it legal, for the government to alienate to secular purposes what was 
 ■ulemnly set apart for the support of religion ? I presume all our friends are not 
 prepared to acknowledge that There is still another important consideration, whicb 
 is to explain the expresf ion in the get, to the effect that these lands shall •• be applied 
 solely to the maintenance" of a protestant clergy, " and io no other use or purpose 
 whatever." 1 think thess are two very important points, and there is a third, 
 namely, as to the meaning of the phrase " vary or repeal." in the Bishop's charge, 
 it is expressly said that the expression applies only to an alteration of the mode of 
 appropriating, not to the grand principle of taking away the lands from religious, 
 and applying them to secular, purposes. 
 
 [An a^iournment for half an hour now took place. At the exphration of that 
 time, the proceedings were resumed.] 
 
 ' Rev. Dr. BuBNS — There is a matter bearirf on the discussion of this mornlACt 
 
 
87 
 
 which I am anziooi to have azplained. In a lUt ot the rectories, and the rami 
 appropriatect ^o them, which I find in one of Mr. Mackenzie's letters in the ExamiiMr, 
 £310 is set down as the amount paid to Mr. Bettridge, ot Woodstock. 
 
 Rey. W. Bettriuok— £100 a year is what I get. I linow nothing of what may 
 be said in any letcer in the Examiner. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Burns— The matter should be explained. 
 
 Rev. B. Cronth— I receive £170 a year. I am described in this letter as in the 
 receipt of £400. 
 
 Rev. F. Evans— And here am I described as the Rev. Francis Evans, Rector of 
 Simcoe, with a pension of £40U a year. Oh, I wish 1 had it ! 
 
 Rev. W. Ormston— I see that the statement is of two years— 1849 and 18C0 — so 
 that it may be correct. 
 
 Rev. W. Bettridge — Instead of discussing this matter, which is quite irregular, 
 let us go on with business. 
 
 Rev. B. Crontn — I was not prepared to enter upon the discussion of this propo- 
 sition, indeed, it was not in the list of propositions furnished to me, but as the 
 Zentlemen on the other side, who had furnished it to Mr. Evans, wish it to b« 
 discussed, we — being desirous of complying with their wishes in evci ylhing lawful 
 and honest — will indulge them. The proposition which we are invited to discuss 
 is this — 
 
 " That the Imperial and Provincial Parliaments have power to appropriate the 
 Clergy Reserves to any secular purpose that is adapted to promote the general 
 welfare of the Province, such as the secular education of the whole people." 
 
 I suppose that this contains all that the reverend gentlemen opposite wish to ai!irm 
 on this particular subject. On the other hand, we maintain that the Imperial and 
 Provincial Parliaments have not the power to do this. Uut 1 must explain when I 
 say they have not the power. Power may be considered under two dili'erent aspects. 
 A man may have power to do that whicii he has no right to do. Nero, the tyrant,, 
 had the power to cut off ihe heads of hia subjects, and illuminate the city of Home 
 with fires around the christians whom he murdered, bat he had not a right lo do 
 it. We must, therefore, make a distinction between right and power. A man 
 may have power to do, and he may do, a thing which in itself is wrong — what in 
 the sight of God, and according to the rules of eternal right and justice, he had not 
 in reality the power to do. Taking that view of power, I am ready to maintain 
 that the Imperial Parliament, and the Provincial Parliament, have not the power to 
 appropriate the Clergy Reserves. They may do it, if they like, but in doing it 
 they do injustice — in doing it they do wrong, and thereby lower themselves in tli* 
 estimation of every well-thinking man. That is my view concerning the matter. 
 A word with reference to Parliament. Parliament has often been called •' iho 
 collective wisdom of a nation." We know it ought to be so. But it ought to ba 
 more than that. It ought to reflect the principle.? of a nation — the honorable prin- 
 ciples, I mean ; it ought to reflect the moral feelings of a nation ; and if a Parlia- 
 ment does not do that, most assuredly it will come to disgrace with all those in tho 
 community who think aright, and who are governed by right principles, I would 
 say to the reverend gentlemen on the other side that they may devoutly pray Par- 
 liament to do what they now ask, and Parliament, yielding to the pressure from 
 without, may do it; but if cur Parliament were composed of men of high-toned 
 feeling, and high moral and christis^n principle, they would resign — every 
 man of them, sooner than do that which wo'd be wrong. But when I look at some late 
 additions which have been made to the present Parliament — when I look at the 
 manner in which the colony has been disgraced in this respect — I feel that if Par- 
 liament were composed altogether of such materials, the pressure from without 
 might lead it to do anything, whether right or wrong. There wor.!J, indeed, be a 
 greater chance of Parliament doing wrong than of doing right. But is it right of 
 reverend gentlemen— ^of those who teach from their pulpits that men should be jutt, 
 
 
paniiwifviii^ 
 
 I 
 
 ¥' 'i 
 
 1 ■ ■ - 
 
 i i '^ 
 
 Pi 
 
 fi 
 
 •J 
 
 -• 
 
 
 
 r;ii 
 
 
 honest, npriffht in thoir deal in g«— should do to otl*f« n tb«f wfih to bo done iin(0| 
 is it right of them, I ask, to labour to produce a prossurt whith sh^^ll force Parlt»f 
 inent to do that whieh is unjust? — to induce Parliament to do to others what thoy 
 would not wish to have done unto themselves 7 Let us new proceed to the justic* 
 of tho question. It has been represented by gentlemen on the other side, up to tho 
 present moment, that those parties who have beeu In possession of the Clergy Re« 
 serves, have no right to them. At all events, what we have received, and what w« 
 hold, has been received, and is held under an act of Parliament, and under tho 
 direct sanction of the government of tho country. We have been reported oven to 
 the llouso of Commons as receiving it, though tl)at report is not altogether accurate 
 and truo ; and no one has gainsaid our right to receive it. Thoretore, on ail handu 
 it must be acknowledged that we have a right to receive it — that there is justice ir\ 
 llic claim which wo mai\o from time to limo on the Receiver General of tlie Prov- 
 ince, for a certain portion of the Clergy Reserves. That being the case, can it b« 
 said that it is juslice--that it is right — that it is doing to others as we should wish men 
 (0 do to us — for Parliament to uso a power with which it is invested, to inflict this 
 wrong? Most assuredly it cannot. This is my view of the matter. The propo- 
 sition of tlie otiier gentlemen is, that they have the power to appropriate the Clergy 
 Reserves v) any secular purpose whatsoever — any secular purpose adapted to pro- 
 mote tho general welfare of the people ; and the secular education of the people ia 
 instanced as such a purpose. Suppose tho Clergy Reserves were taken away — 
 .suppose the wrong is done — suppose those who have laboured for years in this 
 couiury, uiid with whom a covenant was made that they should receive this while 
 tliey Irtbourf-il, were to havo this wrong inflicted upoH them ; still the question 
 remains, to what use would the Reserves be a])propriated ? To anything that will 
 promote tho general welfare of the I'rovinco, we are told. We know that religion 
 wiould promo. it: are they to be devoiod to that ? We know that agricultural 
 sociclios have promoted if : are they to receive the proceeds of the reserves ? No. 
 The purpose is gl"ca to which the reserves would be appropriated, above all others : 
 it is the secular education of tho whole people. Mark ! There is not to be a spice 
 of religion in the education given by these funds ; if there be, the whole fabric falls 
 to the ground. But under tho existing educational system, you cannot apply the 
 reserves to educational purposes, without teaching religion. Under the present 
 common school system of this country, there is one favored class, who have their 
 own schools, and in these they always have religion. They always havo had, 
 and always will have, religion taught in their schools, and they get separate schools 
 for tho purpose. I allude to tho Roman Catholics. You want to take the reserves 
 from us. Some of you complain that we are not protestant enough, though I believe 
 we are truly protostant as any of you. You want to take the reserves from us, I 
 say, and give them, in part, at least, to Roman Caliiolics, to teach Roman Catholic 
 doctrmes m schools. We are not prolestant enough, and yet you want to teach down- 
 right, popery with the reserves, in schools, it must come to that, ifyjur views bo caijied 
 out. You may say, " We'll havo the school system changed." Aye, but get the 
 laws first. A gentleman told us that the people have been fretting and foar.ung for 
 years past in regard to the Reserves, and that it is time that the law should be 
 changed : I should like to know how long you expect to have lo fret and foam before 
 you will get tho existing educational law changed. It will be impossible to get a 
 majority of the House of Assembly — Roman Catholic members — to consent that 
 their schools shall be united with ours, and that religion shall not be taught in them. 
 The thing is utterly impossible ; and, therefore, if you take away from the protec- 
 tant clergy what they are now receiving, and devote it to education, a portion of it 
 must of necessity go into the hands of those who will teach — not the whole of 
 Dens* Theology, for that is too long, but— extracts from Dens' Theology. That is 
 what you want to do, and that is what you call for the general benefit of the com- 
 munity ! If that would be for their benefit, I don't know what would be called 
 injurious. I look around, and see Canada rising, and advancing, and improving in 
 every way. I have been twenty years in the country, tod « most gratifying a^d 
 
nnpreeedented improvement has taken place in all parts— though certainly in lofha 
 more ilian in others. But will what these gentlemen propose advance the general 
 interests of the country? Will it advance those interests which have prospered 
 notwithstanding tho " blighting efTecta" of all these reserves and rectories, which 
 have been hanging over lite country liko an incubus fur so many years — according 
 to tho shewing of these ^cntieinon? Will il tend to the general improve- 
 ment of the country. Will it tend to foster a right feeUng among the 
 people ? — to promote Christianity — true and spiritual Christianity — and proper 
 principle?, amongst our population? Most assuredly it will not. I believe that 
 should it lio carried out, it will be the greatest evil that has ever been inflicted upon 
 the country. I du not tiiink it will be carried out. 1 cannot bring myself to thinlt 
 that such a measure will be adopted. Nny, 1 thinic that when it camo near the 
 point of being carried, Nome of those gentlemen wliu stand on tho other &ide, and 
 who speak in a kind and friendly tone U) us (though uccasiomilly a little bit of irony 
 appears which makes us doubt the coinplimonis they bestow upon us) would begin 
 to doubt whether they were doinjt rij^ht ; they would begin to iremblo within ihem- 
 sclves, and say, *' Perhaps, after all, it is not so bad that the Church of Scotland 
 and the Church of England nhould have a portion of the reserves, and that other 
 proteslautdunominations should be aided and assisted." These gentlemen say that 
 every kind of endowment must be an .njury — a blot — that every man who avails 
 hiniaoU" of endowments to progagale the gospel, must give up his ind >pendenco — 
 and that, of course, his iiilluenco and usefulness must be thereby im|)aired. Now 
 tJiis we nmst all know is not the case. Wo know that oven in this country individ- 
 uals are supported and sustained in tho discharge of their spiritual duties by individ- 
 uals at homo. 1 knovv an individual at homo who sustains three or four travelling 
 missionaries, out of his own funds, and funds which his immediate friends contri- 
 bute, in order that they may perlbrm the work of evangelizing this countr)'. Well, 
 tliese men do not forfeit their independence by receiving this assistance, which 
 enables them to go forth and proclaim the yospol to their fellow men. 1 know a 
 society in England, which is supported by funds bequeathed in a former day — that 
 society being made up of individuals who are mixed, and of diflerout denominations: 
 they support an individual to preach to the pagans of this country — an individual 
 who, it turns out, is of a difl'erent protestant denomination. One gontloinaii now 
 present — the Rev. A Nellis, Missionary to the Mohawk Indians, at Brautford, is 
 sustained in his labours there by .. New England company, and is liborallv sup- 
 ported. If 1 am told aright, the same company support another gentleman who is 
 present, and who ministers to the pagans in another part of the country. Now I 
 would ask, what is the average amount of tho income of these two ministers ? Do 
 they receive more from tho New England society than three times tho average 
 income of their hearers ? As one of these gentlemen laid down this at* the rule 
 which should regulate the payment of ministers, I say that it he receive more, h« 
 ought to send it back. But he comes here to combat endowments. 
 
 Rev. Mr. Gilmore — That is not an endowment. 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn — I should like to know what it is then. It was bequeathed and 
 is administered by an incorporated company : they .sustain , protestant Missionary 
 one place, and a minister of the Church of Englafid in another. That is what 
 the parliament and people of Canada are asked by the Imperial act to do — or 
 rather what is done by that act, because of the divisions amongst the people, and 
 of the difference of opinion which prevail. Therefore, the Iiupci ial act says " we 
 shall sustain all protestant denominations while they discharge the offices of the 
 ministry in the country, and give them something to assist them in perlorraing 
 this work of faith and labour of love amongst the people." It is as unrighteous 
 to take from a mixed company— such as the new Entfland Company— and to 
 live on the means fumishea by them, while we discharge the duties of the min- 
 istry, as it is to take a portion of the munificent grant afforded by the crown, and 
 made over to us by act of Parliament. It would be unrighteous in the govern-, 
 nvent at home (though they have the power, if we view power in the abstract) to 
 
w 
 
 II 
 
 *3' 
 
 I 
 
 ft 
 
 
 I l7 
 l-a. 
 
 II, 
 
 
 1 -■)■. 
 
 ■ ■■ ■ C' 
 
 aio 
 
 .take the funds of the New England Society, and leare our friend Mr. GilifiiQrt 
 without the means of support while be laboured among the Indians. „..^ , 
 
 Rer. Mr. Gilmorb.— Am I allowed to reply 1 
 
 Rer. B. Cronyn.— I will say, then, it would be wrong for the Government to 
 
 take from Mr. Nellis the means by which he is supported while he labours 
 
 ameng the Indians. We know the government have the power to do ihi.9, but 
 
 they will not interfere. We know thai some time ago. an act was pe«sed to re- 
 
 fulate bequests, endowments, and religious lands; and I believe that ibis com- 
 
 )any was brought under the operation of this act, so as tu have some investigation 
 
 ntu the way in which its funds were distributed. If our funds have been, or are 
 
 >eing, misappropriated, let them be investii^ated into, and appropriated aright — 
 
 et accounts of the management be laid before parliament every year— but do 
 
 net take them away from us, merely because you have th»' power to do so. I am 
 
 persuaded that the people of this country, when they think seriously of the matter 
 
 — when not under the influence of an ajjiiation which I deplore, and v/hich I am 
 
 bound to say is an unchristian agitation, (for in my heart I believe it is,) will not ask 
 
 fiarliament to do an unjust thing. If such a thing be done, the character of par- 
 lament will be crone : it will at once lose the high sanction which it has and 
 ought to have, in the estimation ol uie peoplf. Let public opinion once be turned 
 against parliament, and you do irreparable injury to the country, you convert 
 the highest boon of British subjects — a constitution based on representation — into 
 the greatest curse, instead of the greatest blessing. It is a blessing to the country 
 now — a blessing under which we have prospeied. But is it known that the hon- 
 our of the parliament of England isuniinpeachcd ' Grant ihat it is the scene of 
 much strife and contention, and that many of its n^embers do not come up to the 
 standard of high christian principle and morality ; still, as a whole, there is not 
 such a body of men to be found on the face of the workl. They are men who, as 
 8 whole, are above doing anything that is in itself wrong and unjust. And I hope 
 that in this infant country — a country which boasts that it has a transcript of the 
 British constitution, that it is like unto England, and would be like England in 
 all things. There will be found a full measure of morality, honour, truth and 
 fidelity in our parliament, and that it will exhibit a determination to uphold the 
 right, and to protect everything like a just claim, or a vested right, under the law 
 of the land ; notwithstanding that there may be found in it members who, alas! 
 would disgrace any body protcssedly christian. [Timt; expired.] 
 
 Rtv, J. WiNTERBOTHAM.— In replying to the Rev. gentleman who has just -at 
 down, on the question which is now before us, I wish to notice and expose n.je 
 or two false positions which he has assumed. The lirst to which I would advert 
 is that of confounding state endowments with the contributions of christian liber- 
 ality. There is a wide distinction between the Clergy Reserves, and the funds 
 under the control of the new England Company. The funds of this company, 
 Jrom which brother Gilmore and brother Nellis receive their large salaries, liava 
 been furnished by voluntary contributions; and there is an evident lallacy in 
 any attt-mpt to compare such voluntary funds, with a compulsary state enactment. 
 Having disposed of this, 1 will now refer to the circumstances immediately con- 
 nected with the proposition under discussion, as it refers to the parliaments of 
 England and Canada. The Rev. gentleman admits that there is a power in the 
 Imperial Parliament and in the ProvincialParliament to legislate on the properly 
 called Clergy Reserves. But these parliaments must either legislate according 
 to his rule or act wrongfully. I contend that the power of either the Imperial or 
 Provincial Parliament is not dependent upon the private opinion ot the Rectcr 
 of London. In matters of fact I will now deal. Tne first fact to which I advert 
 
 Itroving the supreme power of the Imperial and Provincial Parliaments to legis- 
 ate concerning the Clergy Reserves, is the decision of Her Majesty dueen 
 Victoria — the Lord bless her ! — and her Privy Council, which has been commu- 
 nicated to us in Canada, intimating that they have power to dea) with the subject, 
 aiij} that they are willing to transfer that power to our parliament in due season. 
 
This is a fact upon which I lay somt sit«M. I app«al next to the publirlj dt* 
 ^ared opinions of Attorney Uenerals Baldwin and Lafontaine, both •!' wb«ln 
 kare afTirmtrd that the narliament has power to legislate en this subject. It they 
 
 Se right, the Rector ol London is wrong. Whether the Rector or the Attorney 
 eaerals know most of law. it is net lor me to determine. But the circumstjinces 
 i^naecteit with Iho two iiiilividuiils named, lead me \o think that principle has 
 been in operation with both of them. Mr. Baldwm is a zealous, pious and an 
 vpright Churchman, and he wants his church to have all the privileges which it 
 cAn cunsintently have; but he declares, as a man of principle, that the final dis- 
 posal of the Clergy Reserves is vested in 'he two parliaments. Mr. Lafontain* 
 M a Catholic, very intimate with the prie»tH, much attached to State endowments, 
 end therefore under a certain uias; yet he has declared that it is still open to th« 
 parliament to legislate on the subject. Nowhere 1 put down the stiifTof fact, 
 except that staff of lact be moved, our position is impregnable. It is a matter 
 df complete demonstration by facts. I refer as a conhrmation of this, to the act 
 of 1791, which we call the conscitntional act, the clauses of which give a power 
 lo repeal or alter the regulations relative to the Reserves, to the appointment of 
 Rectors, or to the property connected with Rectories, if these clauses have not 
 been repealed— and it is not pretended that they have — they alone are conclusive 
 MB to the power and right of our parliament to interfere, and regulate according 
 to the principles of justice, the apportionment and application of the Rescrvss. 
 I appeal to this audience whether these aie not plain, demonstrative truths, that 
 the position we have as.su ined is the correct one, namely. i'.hat it is lelHo tha 
 Imperial and Provincial Parliaments finally to settle and to r?gulatc all the con- 
 cerns connected with that vast property which has for so many years been mono- 
 polised by the Clergy of one church, and the proceeds of which are now given 
 principally to the Clergy of two favoured churches. I ask, what justice is thera 
 in giving the principal part of the proceeds of the Clergy Re.serresto the Churches 
 of England and Scotland'? Are they more virtuous tiiaii other denotninationsi 
 Have they laboured more diligently for good! Have they set better examples 
 before the people 1 none of these questions cau be answered in the aifirmative; 
 an>i therefore we say that in the present state of things there is a violation of 
 justice which calls for the intervention of parliament. The power of the Impe- 
 rial and Provincial Parliaments will neccssajily be called forth in relation to 
 this valuable property, ■'^ause a certain portion of it u now u.sed and dealt with 
 
 consistent with the principles of public justice and of 
 w to my brother from London, who managed to get an 
 vincial Parliament for the sale of his glebe there. I 
 w -re not re.iiized by the sale of that glebe 1 When a 
 trans*' noti of this nature i'^ seen to take place openly — when public properly 
 (accortting to the views I hold ol I'iblif proj)eriy) is thus made a matter of specu- 
 lative sale, to feed the grasping a\ aricc of those who claim credit for great di»- 
 Intercstedness; Isay, when this is the case, it is time for parliament. 
 
 Rev. F Evans. — Order, order. There was an express understanding that 
 personalities ol this natii'"** should not be indnl-^ed in. We might have assailed 
 individuals if we had chasen, and charged ihem with doing that which is not 
 right, but we have refrained from every thing of the kind. What Mr. Winter- 
 botham now speaks of is entirely foreign to i' e subject. The transaction in ques- 
 tion was perfectly regular, and has been m j-^t fully explained, but this is not the 
 place to speak of it. The Riibject is not betbre the chair ; and I request that what 
 Mr. Win'-..' ham has said may be expunged from the report. It is most im- 
 proper to 'ir.K', •'{ (he transfer of property at London, and to accuse gentlemen of 
 gasping a' 'iri "ousness, and I know not what beside. 
 
 Chairman - :iothing personal ought to be allowed, and so far, the Rer. 'eii- 
 tlpman is out of order. S, stems are to be attacked, not individuals. 
 
 Rer. Mr. Wintbrbotham, — Did not Mr. Cronyn specially and personally dia^ 
 In the affairs of Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Nellis 1 
 
 iu a manner which is 
 gen ral equity. I rel» 
 act !■ <ssed through the , 
 •sk n whether $'2,500 
 

 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 1.25 
 
 m fit 
 
 ■u 
 
 IM 
 
 I 
 
 2.0 
 
 ^ IIIIIJ4 
 
 Vl 
 
 ^>. 
 
 
 
 HlOtOgK?)hJC 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 W; :ST MAIN STREET 
 
 •VEbSTER.N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) S72-4503 
 
 °;j^^^^ 
 
 

 &? 
 
ill 
 
 l-k 
 
 ■-iH MU iH'tilX -ytti 
 
 •'<:<! 
 
 : .V>f 
 
 03 
 
 Rer. P. Etans.— He did not charge them with the slightest impropriety; ''H^ 
 Rev. J. WiNTKRBOTMAM.— I bow lo the chair. The circumstances of the M.h 
 
 of the London Rectory glebe land is well known to the public. 
 Rev. B. Cbonyn.— I ask leave to explain. 
 
 ■ Rev. J. WiNTERBOTHAM.— I don't impute dishonesty to the Rev. gentleman, 
 
 : Rev. F. Evans. — Speculative, grasping, avaricious — but not dishonest! 
 
 . Rev. W. Bettridge. — Mr. Cronyn has certainly a right to explain. 
 
 Rev. J. WiNTERBOEHAM.— If he has a right to explain, I have a right to defefid 
 what I say. But 1 will pass from this subject. Another reason why the two 
 parliaments have the power — and ought to be called upon to exercise the power*- 
 to alter the appropriation ot the Reserves is, that their present distribution is 
 exerting a very langerous influence upon ihe opinions of public rnen in thi» 
 country. Amongst the arguments which were brought, forward in this place yes- 
 terday, in vindication of State endowments, and the power of states to endow 
 Christian Churches was this, that under the old Testament law, the man who did 
 not bring his sacrifice to the altar, and give to the priests of the Jews their pro- 
 portionate part, was to be stoned to death. Now if this principle is to be intro- 
 duced into Canada, in support of Stale endowments', it is time for us to looh 
 about. I think that we have cause for thankfulness in the lact that the Imperial 
 and Provincial parliaments have the power and the right to destroy a system which 
 is thus corrupting the minds of godly men; for certainly that is a corrupting 
 system which induces men to plead for stoning to death, in connection wiib the 
 advocacy of state endowments. It was not only in regard to the non-delivery of 
 the priests' share of the sacrifice that this extraordinary doctrine was avowed 
 yesterday. The stoning to death ot the Sabbath breaker was also referred to, in 
 the same connection. We will not have this in Canada, because it is a cruel 
 law; and we will call upon Parliament to abolish a system which so far per- 
 verts the minds of men as to lead them to contend for these horrible penalties. — 
 Was not the drunkard, under the Jewish laws, to be taken away fr>m the camp 
 and stof^ed 1 What are we to think of a system which causes men to go back to 
 these terrible penalties, to show thai state endowments may be permitted and 
 fostered? Instead of stoning the poor drunkard to death, let us try to reform 
 him; and let us do all we can to pull down a system which can only desire 
 support from such references as these. Away with it ! That the power o£ the 
 two parliaments to legislate on the Clergy Reserves should be insisted upon, and 
 exereised, will appear from another view of things. We all know that loyalty 
 lo the Clueen and to the parliament is one of iha first virtues that ought to exist 
 in a community ; but from what passed in this place yesterday, I am afraid that 
 the loyalty of certain individuals is being rather shaken by the system of state 
 endowments, as it exists here. All of us, 1 dare say, heard some Rev. gentlemen 
 say yesterday, in very bold language, that they would defy the power of the 
 Clueen and of the parliament to interfere with them. Now, i contend that an act 
 of Parliament is in existence which binds the very persons who made this avowal, 
 to obey the Clueen and Parliament in all matters which were made subjects 
 ol debate yesterday. The law of the case was laid down in t^e reign of Henry 
 VIII, when it was enacted that His Majesty was, and always had been " the su- 
 preme head on earth of the Church of England," and hada " full power to exercise 
 all manner of jurisdiction, commonly called ecclesiastical jurisdiction," and thai 
 "Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical persons," had no 
 manner of jurisdiction but by and of his Majesty. Now this is the right which 
 the Clueen possesses to this day, under the act of supremacy ; and I say, therefore, 
 that to disavow a willingness to submit to the act of supremacy— so far a,s the 
 Church of Engladd is concerned — Is to endanger the loyal feelings of men ; and 
 that those who have taken the oath of supremacy, and have bound themselves to 
 recognize the Clueen as the head of the church, ought not to be corrupted, and. 
 tempted to discard this solemn obligation, by any consideration arising out^ ei 
 
03 
 
 Hatt cndowm€i|t8. Thej- ought to adhere to the doctrine of supremacy— of oU»- 
 ^ience to the C^ueen in all ecclesiastical matters; and the fact that they denj 
 tfeeir duty in this respect, and literally defy tne Queen, is one striking evidence of 
 die iniquitj of the system of state endowment?, and ol the need that exists for iha 
 eercise of the power which I say is possessed by the two parliaments. [TioM 
 expired.] 
 
 Rev. G. Eeu.. — I confess .t is rather a difficult matter to speak on this subject 
 at all. To discuss a constititional question of this kind, as to what is the power 
 off the Imperial and the Provincial parliaments may probably be considered a» 
 belonging more properly to persons in the legal profession, anil of high standing. 
 But there is, at the same time, a certain view which can be taken of it in which 
 it is open to be discussed by every perso,n and it is in that view, I conceive, that 
 it is now before us. The word power having been already sufficiently explained 
 I need not further go into that consideration, except to mention that I consider 
 there is strictly a difference between power and rij^ht. If we take the word power 
 in its ph^'sical sense, of course all must acknowledge that parliament has the 
 power ol alienating these Reserves. But I deny most emphatically that any 
 parliament, or any other power on earth has the right to take away these Recto- 
 ries, and aheniaie them to any other than religious purposes. I know tha^ this 
 turns upon the title by which these Reserves are held ; and I maintain most dis- 
 tinctly that the title is letter — that is to say, if national faith is to be observed — 
 than a patent would be. The case, as it appears to me, is a counterpart of this. 
 If a man owes me a certain sum of money, and gives me a bill lor it, and after- 
 wards repudiates that bill, I say he is dishonest ; but if I do not require a bill, 
 but, trusting in his honesty, take his word simply for it, and then, after all, he 
 refuses to repay me, I say would be acting more basely, and far more unworthily 
 than if he merely repudiated a bill. The act of parliament granting these 
 reserves, was a pledge of fairh— not only the public faith, but the religious faith 
 of a religious kingdom — a pledge thai these reserves should be appropriated to a 
 specific purpose, from which they cannot rightly be alienated. What, then, is the 
 justice of this easel It has been asserted to-day that the Imperial Act of 1810 
 was an act of great injustice ; while on this side it was maintained that there 
 was no injustice, because it did not force the consciences of the other party. Now 
 we see in the case before us, that if these reserves were alienated, there would b« 
 a manifest injustice in forcing the consciences of the minority. I question the 
 propriety of speakiug of the friends of the reserves as the minority ; since the 
 examination cf the census taking previous to the passing of that act, as well as 
 (tf the census last taken, will show that the churches of England and Scotland 
 numbered 57 per cent, of the whole of the protestant denominations of the coun- 
 try — of course excluding Roman Catholics, and those who belong to no denomi- 
 uation. These two churches, I say, constituted very considerably more than hall 
 a( the whole Protestant population. But how is the conscience of the province, 
 spoken of to-dav, to be brought to bearl It is the conscience of Roman Catho- 
 lics and of infmels — those belonging to no denomination of christians — which is , 
 to be considered by ihe legislature "in favour of the withdrawal from various 
 denominations of the Church of Christ, ot that which has been solemnly given, 
 and which the strongest power on earth is pledged to maintain for the use of 
 these churches. Why are these two churches specially mentioned in the bill, 
 and all others passed byl Is that uufair 1 I say this has been done for a very 
 obvious reason — because these two churches were churches established by law 
 in part of Great Britain— because they were established in England and Scot- 
 land. For this reason they are properly mentioned in the bill; although these 
 which are not established, may jusi as properly come in and receive a share of 
 the funds of the Clergy Reserves, in a proportion equal to their respective nunv 
 tiers. I will not enter particularly into one point to M'hich considerable force has 
 teen attached- -namely, that the whole proceeds of the reserves were to be ap- 
 fnropriated to these two churches. 1 know not what the whole fund will amount 
 la io the cnd,batl think there is very gojd reason for supposing that as these two 
 
"T^ 
 
 m 
 
 04 
 
 •hntthes constituted more than hair, the proportion which they will reeeire irllt 
 not in reality amount to anything more than their share — that is, when taken In 
 comparison with the proportion of population which they have, as compared with 
 Ihe population of all the protestant denominations of the country, ^pply th« 
 reserves to secular education, it is said. I would ask how is it possible to apply 
 anything to mere secular education — that is, in the sense of completely exdiuding 
 ererything connected with religion, i say such a thin^ as simple secular educa' 
 tion, apart from religion, is impossible. Yeu may educate children, as too many 
 are educated — you may withhold Irom them the gospel—but 1 can tell you, yua 
 cannot prevent Satan educating them, if you retuse to allow them to be educated 
 in the principles of the gospel. And I would ask, is it becoming in a reli^'ious, 
 a professedly christian country, to hand over our youthful minds and our uhi]< 
 dren, to be educated by Satan 1— to declare by law, that the christian reiigioii 
 •hall not torm a part, an eL*ment ot their education ? Perhaps it will be said, w« 
 are holding on to old notions — tha t the progressers of the age requ ires these changes. 
 Yes, there is progress in nations, but the truth of the Bible is the same to-day a» 
 ii was a thousand years ago, and as it will be a thousand yeais hence. Thi 
 tt'ulh of the Bible is the same, and it (not as has been said, tbe opinion of tha 
 Rector of London) sh:)uld be allowed to guide the parliament. I maintain that 
 the opinions expressed, and the principles laid down in the word of God, form 
 the only rule which the parliament is bound to obey; and they cannot retuaa 
 obedience without committing sin against God. We cannot hinder them from 
 doing it 1 may protest against it as an individual, but I cannot hinder them 
 from doing that which is sinful. I do contend, however, that if our parliament, 
 •r the parliament of Great Britain, depart from the truth ot the word ot God, they 
 are committing sin ; and if they take away from the Church ot England and tbi 
 Church ot Scotland that which has been solemnly given to them, they commit 
 sin against the Head ofthose Churches, or rather the iieadof the Church. A great 
 deal has been said about the compulsory support of religion, but I submit that it 
 is plainly absurd, I ask, where is it possible to find the compulsory support of 
 »«ligion in Canada 1 Who has ever been compelled here, to give a single farth- 
 ing to the support of these churches which receive assistanca from the Clerjry 
 Reserve Fund 1 . , . 
 
 Rev. J. RoAr. — We all pay. — 
 
 Rev. G. Bell. — You have never been compelled to pay a single farthin^^— 
 The reserves are not public property — they never belonged to the people of Ca- 
 nada, in the sens^e in which public property is generally understood. They 
 were appropriated to their present uses, before there were, literally, what may ba 
 •ailed ilie people of Canada, and while thus appropriated, it is evident that tbt 
 parliament of Canada cannot interfere with them, without the sanction of tlw 
 parliament at home. The recent message from the government at home statt 
 that they would seek the power of transferring them to the <onirol of the parlia- 
 ment of Canada. They nave to ask the Imperial Parliament to do this, but tbs 
 Imperial parliament has not yet done it; and i have so much confidence in its 
 tnorality and religious principle, that I believe it never will. If, then, the alie- 
 nation lake place at all, I believe it will be in opposition to the will of the par- 
 liament of Great Britain. Another asseition which I would distinctly deny, 
 is, that there are two favoured churches, lavouieJ by the act ui idiO. Tha 
 •hurches of England and Scotland are mentioned by name, for the reason which 
 I have already explained ; but the mention of their names does not give them 
 any favour which is not extented to others. On the other hand, hovever, whils 
 1 maintain that there is no favouritism shown to these churches, I do believe that 
 there is in the minds of a certain class of the population of Canada, a very strong 
 feeling against churches altogether: and I believe that while this feeling is enter- 
 tiiined, there is a desire to proscribe certain churches, while others, placed ia 
 similar circumstances, are not to be proscribed. But is property given to a 
 shurch, to be taken away merely because it is held by a church 1 Is a church 
 wore wicked than any other corporation > Why are all other corporations to h« 
 
»^y 
 
 V 
 
 ■i 
 
 avowed still to huld property 1 Why is erery iDdtridual in the receipt of a gfiBt 
 Irom the crown, to continue to hold that property, while churches are to be denied 
 this right 1 If it could be shown thut members of churches are worse than other 
 sflasses, ur that churches themselves are worse thaa other corporations, there 
 might be some apparent reason for the cause which is advocated, but until it bv 
 shown, there is no reason at all. There is one other subject on which I would 
 say a word or two, and that is respecting the result. Suppose that ail these diffi" 
 culties be got over — suppose that the parliament ofOreat Britain gives the desired 
 pewer, (which I don't believe will be the case) or suppose that the parliament of 
 Canada lakes the power in defiance of Great Britain, and alienates these reservaa 
 from the purposes for which they were granted, what will be the consequenaet 
 Why, all right of property will be thrown loose. 1 do not hold an inch of pro- 
 perty by deed, and if this were to take place I should be glad I did not, because I 
 think it would not be worth a straw. My reason for saying this is, that I con- 
 sider the litle to these reserves better than a deed. It rests on national faith, 
 which ought to be superior lo a mere expression of the executive in a deed. But 
 cuppose, as an ultimate result, that the church be deprived of her property, how 
 would matters then standi It is said that the church did without endowments la 
 former ages, and may do so again ; and that I readily believe. I believe that 
 in whatever circumstances it pleases our Lord to place His church in this world, 
 He will give His church grace to l<veand prosper, and tu do her work under 
 every change. If He calls on His church to labour in this world without state 
 endowments or support, — nay, opposed and persecuted by states and kingdoms of 
 ihe world — then He will give her grace to do His work. But if it pleases Hia 
 lo bestow on her property, and to give her an opportunity of using property to 
 His glory. He will hold her responsible for the use of that property ; and she has 
 no more right to give it up, than to give up any other privileges which her Lord 
 has bestowed upon her. in whatever circumstances she may be placed, I trust 
 that the Church of Christ will have grace to fulfill her great mission. If she b« 
 persecuted but not enctowed, I trust it will be still the same. If she be endowed 
 by the state, and her means of usefulness be thereby increased, she is bound !• 
 mse those means in the service ol her master, and is responsible to him for that 
 «se. [Time expired] 
 
 Rev. W. Ormston — There are two »hings in this resolution which strike m« 
 as worthy of notice: — first, the power of parliament to meddle with this properly 
 at all — which ia met by the cry of" vested rights j" secondly, the application of 
 these reserves to secular purposes, which leads our friends here to say somethinj^ 
 about sacrilege. Are the lands occupied by the church, which now derives benefit 
 from them, the property of the members of that church 1 We think not. Wt 
 believe that that property in reality belongs to the country, and the country there- 
 fore has a right to do what it chooses with it. Are apy classes of public servant* 
 proprietors of the services whence their salaries flowi May not these recipient* 
 uf the proceeds of the reserves justly be called servants of the state, hired to per- 
 form so much lobour for a given remuneration ? Are not judges salaried for th* 
 administration of justice 1 — kings lor the execution of laws 1 — soldiers for th« 
 
 fiublic defence 1 — and state-paid clergy for the religious instruction of the peoplet 
 n each of the cases, whether the parties be paid in land or money, the state haa 
 a clear right to regulate their salaries — to increase them, to diminish them, or, 
 if deemed desirable, to do away with them altogether. Ia an early period in the 
 history of Europe, many sovereigns did pay their warriors with land. Now 
 though the clergy of this country have certain land set apart as the source of, and 
 iecurity for, their pensions, while they are thus engaged by the state, it cannot 
 be contended that they are the proprietors of these lands. These lands are not 
 even held by them for their own personal benefit. All private property is thu» 
 held : The man who holds a title or deed, holds it for his own particular use. 
 He may use his land or abuse it, as he pleases. But what is your covenant 1 
 you have not a deed for a foot of land in Canada, and I trust never will hav« , 
 
06 
 
 
 rt;.. 
 
 although I may remark parenthetically, that aecordinv to what we have VHSen 
 told to-day, if ever we get a parliament of ''high>toned principle"— that is, of 
 every high churchmen— ihese gentlemen will get a patent deed lor every acre of 
 (he reserves, and then of course they will be theirs. But in the meantime, I say, 
 no individual clergyman ever has been the proprietor of a single foot of land, 
 as a clergyman, unless he has a patent deed in his own name^ and how, there- 
 fore, can any number of clergy men, in a corporate capacity, pretend to the proprie- 
 torship of ihis land 1 According to these gentlemen, corporations have bodies and 
 souls. According to fact and common sense, corporations are creatures of par- 
 liament. The parliament of Great Britain, or even of Canada-— though the latter 
 has been somewhct vilified to-day, by one of our rectorial friends— can be omni- 
 potent, if we are to believe these gentlemen. That is, parliament can not only 
 create a corporate body, but can breathe into it a living soul. Horrible! Ordi- 
 nary corporations have in direct view their own peculiar benefit, and hence they 
 can sell their right to railway shares or bank stock ; but I never heard rectors 
 claim that they can bequeath the righ: to their rectories, to their children, or 
 sell them to other parties. Again ; the priesthood is a corporation — an endowed 
 corporation — not endowed, however, for the individual good of its members, but 
 for the common good and welfare of the country. That is the only reason why 
 they are endowed, as indeed they admit. They are mere trustees for the time 
 being, and in this capacity they are intrusted with the management of these 
 lands, whence th&ir salaries are drawn. Suppose, now, that a landloid, instead 
 of a King, said to his factor, " you shall have the use of a certai" farm gratis," 
 and the foctor occupied the farm ; but bye-and-bye, the landlord might find that, 
 he did not need a lactor — could the factor say he had a vested rijzht in the farm 
 which he had been permitted to occupy 1 Certainly not. By the same rule, no 
 clergymnn can have a vested right, inaividually, in any lands or salaries, how- 
 ever long they may have possessed them., or however laborious their duties, Th« 
 right of private property is a« essential element in society ; but not to corpora- 
 tions. No corporate bodies can exist till parlianoent exists. They are creatures 
 and may be modified, altered, or destroyed at the will of parliament. They are 
 human afiairs, and are as mutable and chanaealDle as all other numan afii'airs. — 
 And we believe that these institutions— these corporations, civil and religious 
 ought to be preserved just so long as they are beneficial, and no longer. They 
 should be irai«ediately amended when discovered to be inefficient, and utterly 
 abolished when found lo be injurious to the interests of the country. We are 
 firmly persuaded that this particular corporation is exceedingly injurious to th« 
 well-being of Canada. So much for the vested rights. We cannot see any 
 vested right, for vested, as I anderstand it, is opposed to contingent. They hav« 
 never had anything beyond a contingent claim, and it is clear that it was never 
 so ticklish as now. The day is not distant when the contingency will be removed, 
 and the lossof the reserves be made matter of certainty. Isay thatin takingaway 
 these reserves we are conferring a boon on the church of England and the church 
 of Scotland; for if They were but once untrammeied from these influences they 
 would go on, increasing in usefulness, even in the midst of persecution, if any 
 should arise. We were asked by Mr. Evans what we are willing to give to the 
 Church of England is lieu of the reserves. What have we to give 1 Nothing. 
 When did 3eorge III — a very pious king in their memory — have any land in 
 Canada 1 I never heard that he had a single foot of land here, in which (o have 
 been burled, if he had wished to be brought so far. We do not hold the doctrine 
 that any King or dueen. President or Emperor, owns the country in which we 
 dwell. The monarch for the time being is only the head of that corporation 
 which owns the whole of it, and which is responsible for the management of it. 
 We do not mean, then, that the Church of England shall get anything instead of 
 the reserves, except that which we claim for ourselves — religious freedom — 1\)» 
 lights of conscience. Their conscience is a most peculiar one at present, lor 
 lUey complain ot hardship because they cannot put their hands inlo my pockety 
 
T'r 
 
 07 
 
 OT-the pablic parse, and help themselves. We send men to Parliament 
 "^Ko manage our property, and believing these reserves to be the property 
 '<if tho country, wo want to tell Ihem how to dispose of them. Now a 
 •word or two about this Parliament. We have learned a great deal about 
 •many things since we came here, And something about Parliament. — 
 They are always supreme, it is admitted, yet there may happen to be 
 manifest injusttce. it was perfectly right in the legislature to give pro- 
 Iperty to a church, but it will be exceedingly wrong — impiously wicked — 
 iiornbly sacrilegious— if the same Parliament takes it away. Again: 
 <our friends say Parliament may take it away. We, too, say it may — we 
 hope it will—J had almost said we have power to say it must; and I 
 believe Ihat an enlightened, but dissatisfied community, will say the 
 «ame. >I know that many enlightened churchmen say so. Our rectoriai 
 friends here confess that rather than be continually engaged in this fir- 
 tnoil, pleasant though it be, they would give the w^hoie up. A noble and 
 manly confession ! But we are told it would be terrible to apply the 
 proceeds of the reserves to secular purposes. We can't do that without 
 educating Roman Catholics, one gentleman said ] but I have not time 
 to enter into that point. Suppose the proceeds were applied to railroads. 
 We should prefer education, but if they cannot be applied to education 
 vithout teaching Uomnn Catholicism (iliougli I believe they can), then 
 let them be applied to the construction of railroads or any other purpose. 
 Who does not know that in many of live countries on the contmeiit of 
 Europe, ecclesiastical property has been alienated, again and again, and 
 applied to secular purposes ? Even in England, the property of the 
 Roman Catholic church was alienated, and applied lo the support ot the 
 present protestant establishment. Many benefices in the German States 
 were applied to secular purposes. And when prelacy was dethroned in 
 my native country, the lands were chiclly vested in the King, only a part 
 being vested in the established Church of Scotland — one of wiiose min- 
 isters is found here, sitting at the feet of prelacy, and holding up the 
 skins of a system which lias deluged his native heather with blooii. 
 Alas, my brother ! alas, my brother ! If tire alienation of the reeerve« 
 could be proved to be sacrilege, in the sense in wiiich that word can be 
 prqperly used, we would not be its advocates^ but believing that the 
 ^tate is the proprietor of these lands, we say that the state has full power, 
 and a perfect right, to appropriate them in any way which a majority of 
 the people may determine. But ''the public faith is pledged." When 
 and where? — how and by whom? We have often heard of the public 
 faith .being pledged to many a foul job. If these gentlemen did really 
 understand, when they engaged to discharge this work, that their sala* 
 ries would not be meddled with, I for one say, let them enjoy them ; bui, 
 remember, we have made no covenant with the unborn or the unordaiped. 
 We do not -want men who have laboured undl grey hairs have grown, 
 for the benefit of their country, to be turned out of their homes. That 
 is not proposed. Let there be a generous treatment of all such cases, in 
 order that individual hardship may not be inflicted. We say generous, 
 not just. God forbid that justice should ever reach them ! We will not 
 weigh their claims in the scales ot justice, but will rather extend chrisv 
 tian liberality towards them. Something has been said, insinuatingly, 
 about thci encomiums on this side being ironical. We do not like to 
 «dmit that, though it may be so on both sides. We can very well con- 
 
 o 
 

 1: 
 
 €eivo that if this generai orbanity and kiadnesi of munner were filivays 
 Mianifested towards us, we should not have much reasoh to complain of 
 ilijberality. Our worthy rrionda, the rectors, disclaim domipancy, and in 
 my soul 1 believe they are sincere. But in proof of the dotminant spirit 
 of the Church, I would refer to the C/iurcA newspaper, the organ of these 
 fhurchrnen, where we arc styled " unreasoning sectarians/' left beyond 
 the pale uf the church, to the uncovenanted mercies oi God ! Had these 
 gentlemen to take an oath after they were ordained, before they could 
 administer the rite of marriage ? I — who was never aught else thaik 
 loyal — had to go and take the oath of loyalty. ^ .,, .. ,,; . ,,, . ,^ 
 
 Rev. W. Bettridge. — We have not that to do. ' 
 
 Rev. W. Ormston. — No, but I had. There is an illastratioo of the 
 degradation we speak of. There is the dominancy of which we com- 
 plain. They insist that the consciences of the mmority shoufd be h<-dd 
 sacred, and I agree with them ; but let them not forget this principle in 
 dealing with others. In all proper things, we will aid them, rather than 
 injure them. Let them go on in the work of evangelizing the world, 
 and we will help them, to the best of our ability. [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. G. Bell. — There was a 'Personal allusion to me in the last speech, 
 which ought not to be reported : 1 allude to. the charge agaiQbt rne uf 
 maintaming prelacy. . ' i ^ ,.'.',. 
 
 Rev. W. Ormston. — I said, absisting in maintaining prelacy — holdmg 
 up the skirts ; that's all. I meant to state that I thouglit it strange that 
 a descendant of those venerable sires of ours, who upheld the cross 
 against the sword, nl:oald be found assisting in maintaining a system 
 that once covered the ocoUish heather with blood. '.-.. ,:o\' i.n ^ ,- 
 
 Rev. G. Bell. — It is a very severe charge, made against me personally. 
 
 Chairman. — It does not strike me that the observation can be consid- 
 ered personally offensive. 
 
 Rev. F. Evans. — The system established by law in Canada has 
 nothing in common with the English system, referred to by Mr. Ormston, 
 as having produced such disastrous consequences. 
 
 Rev. VV. Ormston. — It is against a system, not against men, that we 
 wage wa". Do not, therefore, be so thin-skinned. The word "unchris- 
 tian" has been thrown against us, but we did not complain. 1 am an 
 agitator, I confess, and intend to be, while I live and have my being. 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn. — I find some difficulty in following the two gentle- 
 men who have just spoken on the opposte side. One of them I do not 
 
 'Wish lo follow, because he has led into paths in which I would not walk. 
 
 , The other i find a difficulty in following, because of the extreme rapidity 
 with which he has combined and clustered many things together in his 
 speech, which are extremely diverse in their nature. However I shall 
 endeavor, in the short time allotted to me. to take a cursory view of the 
 argument on the side advocated by the other gentlemen*. In the first 
 place, it is boldly asserted that there k the power— and not only the 
 |K)wer, but the right — in the parliament, to do that which this resolution 
 aaya they ought to do— that is, to take away the property which has 
 been bestowed by the crown to the church. But I take it that the gen- 
 tlemen who has just sat down has answered this in < 
 
 
 part I 
 
 sipetch. 
 
He iaid, "Di<l not th« Parliament do right when, they gave it? and wi/l 
 the saobe Parii&ment do wrong in taking it away V I do not know how- 
 he or any man can prove that black is while, or that white is black. But 
 he must be ublp to do it, or something like it, belore ho can prove that 
 the Parliament which did right in giving the reserves, would do right in 
 taking them away. 
 
 Rev. W. Okmston.- 
 the reserves. 
 
 •I do not believe they did right when they gave 
 
 Rev: B. Cronvn,— The point of his argument was this: "We are 
 told it would be wrong"— and he uttered it with great vehemence—" to 
 take away this property, but yet parliament did quite right in giving it*' 
 In this, he of course implies that the parliament of Great Britain can do 
 or undo, and yet be right whether it does or undoes: at least, so it ap- 
 peared to me. The gentleman may perhaps be able to explain this to 
 himself— to his own conscience, which appears to be very tender ; but I 
 think he certainly cannot explain it to the salisdiction of those present. 
 With respect to the matte:* of conscience, of which he has spoken : ho 
 says thai that must be a peculiar kind of conscience which would not 
 make us feel that we were not permitted to put our hands into his pocket, 
 and take away his property. Now I say that this is an unkind and unfair 
 way of putting an argument to any public meeting: it is unfair to accuse 
 us of being public robbers, just to give point to an argument in a popular 
 assemblage, and to draw forth a little clap-trap applause. Altogether, 
 we have been speaking a little more plainly to-day than wc did yester- 
 day. It is well ihat we should speak plainly ; but I think that for persons 
 to avail themselves o!' an opportunity of this kind to give utterance to 
 bitter things, hastily and vehemently, is unworthy and unbecoming. We 
 consented to enter into this discussion, with an expectation that we should 
 discuss the various propositions calmly, clearly, and in a christian spirit. 
 We were given to understand that there would be an absence of every 
 thing Ihat could excit'^, every thing that could irritate every thing that 
 could annoy, every thing that could provoke personal ill will between 
 the parties engaged. Such was the information which I received If I 
 had thought anything else, I should not have been one to promote or' 
 take part in these proceedings ; bpxause I believe that we are inflicting 
 very great moral injury on the people, when we excite bad feeling, or 
 stir up foul prejudices. I therefore deplore that anything of the kind 
 was introduced. With reference to what was said personally of myself, 
 that, 1 believe, is to be expunged from the report. I think it ought to 
 be expunged, indeed, not only from the report of our proceedings, but 
 from the memory of the person who gave utterance to it, who knows that 
 a full explanation has been given on more occasions than one — who 
 knows the whole circumstances of the case — and who, moreover, fully 
 understands that not one solitary cent of ihe money paid over ever en- 
 riched me. He ought to know that ; and yet he spoke to-day of'' grasp- 
 ing" and " avaricious" — but yet exceedingly honest — conduct. I leave 
 him to reconcile these things, which are contradictory to each other. I 
 inust again Ray, with regard to the gentleman who last spoke, that I 
 found it exceedingly difficult to make notes of what he said, in conae 
 quence of his great rapidity. What he said, however, left this genera 
 khpression on my mind— that he proceeded on the false assumption tha V 
 
■'7'-'*^fp"»iH^Tw-T^T7^!t^ir^ 
 
 iti i 
 
 1<>0 
 
 the propet^ty is the property or the )>ublie, ehd Yrat of thoie purtiet lo 
 whom It wai given; that it doei not belong to the |}reient holders by 
 right, at all, although bestowed on them by act of parliartiient. He drew 
 h distinction between public and private propeV^y— between corporatti 
 and individual property ; but the law of our country makes no such di9> 
 tinctiun. Properly is sacred in the eye of the law, of whatever kind it be* 
 Take, for instance, the Canada Company. It is not a corporation, but a 
 mere company of merchants. In what position would that company 
 stand, if the doctrines of this gentleman were carried out ? They got 
 a very large quantity of land — nearly as much as the clergy reserves, or 
 perhaps more ; and they got it at a very low rate — for a mere bagatelle, 
 in fact. They got it on the faith of the country, and they have been 
 speculatmg in it ever since ; some of ii they have sold, but a large por- 
 tion uf it remains unsettled ; and according to the doctrines of this 
 gentleman, they have no right to it, at all. They paid for it, but, accord- 
 ing to thid new doctrine, they have abused their trust, and have no right 
 to hold it. I cannot agree to any such principle. I remember hearing 
 this very principle preached in the House of Assembly, but it was indig- 
 nantly put down at tha: time, and the country has been silent about it 
 ever since. I rejoice in it. Of course^ that company obtained a great 
 benefit — a great bargain — when they made the purchase of this land at 
 so low a price ; but I rejoice that their title has been secured to them, 
 and that the rights of property have in their case been maintained by 
 the law of the countrV- I think that our property— ^the clergy reserves- 
 stands on the same looting. It was granted to us by an act of parlia- 
 ment. Gentlemen say that as long as we live, nothing will be done to 
 deprive us of our privileges. We are nuch obliged lor that. But we 
 think there are generations yet to come who will want to have the 
 ministrations of Christ's gospel amongst them — more especially the poor 
 throughout the country ; and we therefore feel that it is our bounden 
 duty (as I have said before) to maintain, by every constitutional means 
 in our power, tins right, and not to part with this property, which, like 
 all other gifts of God, has been committed to our trust. As trustees of 
 it, it is our duty to use every constitutional means in order that it may 
 be preserved to the sacred purpose for which it was given. I cannot 
 help noticing that there appears to be a wounded pride in the minds of 
 some of the gentlemen who have spoken to-day. The gentleman who 
 last sat down instanced the C/i«rc^ newspaper, and quoted the expression 
 •^ unreasoning sectarians," from its columns. Well now, that is wounded 
 pride, after all. 
 Rev. W, Ormston. — We disclaim it» j ,\,' ..^ .] ;, •, . ; ..(A ,> 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn. — That is wounded pride. : . ; :;; ■ i.r' . i;. , 
 Rev. Dr. Burns. — It is honest indignation. •' < ,v m.;. 
 
 Rev. W. Ormston — Oh, yes ! we have a great deal of that, knd we 
 are proud oi it. 
 
 Kev J. WiNTERBOTHAM. — Firstly let me allude to the matter of dis- 
 courtesy which we have been charged with exhibiting towards tha 
 rectors of the Church of England. Now, 1 have no feeling of discour- 
 tesy or resentment, but a feeling of love towards thens all, and I wish 
 that they were delivered from the trammels of state churches. We, 
 wuu plead for the secular appropriation of the clergy reserves, have been 
 
 ,-iW. 
 
we 
 
 101 
 
 eharg«4 with » dwira to «i|pp«rt tht errori of tha Catholio church. I 
 deny the charga. Wa ara not tha tupportars of (he man of lin, but wa 
 ara hit public reprovarf, whether in the Church of England or tha 
 Church of Uorae. With regard to appropriating the clergy rcacrves to 
 tlie purposes of general education. I sity tKat there is everything in such 
 a course that ought to command the attention and approval of a minister 
 of God. We know that the interests of the rising generation, in this 
 country, are vast indeed; they are deep — they are extensive; and every 
 one ought to feel an earnest solicitude for the enlightenment of those 
 who are to form our senators, our Invvyera, our judges, and who will have 
 to manage the great machinery of the varied public concerns of this 
 nation. Yes, this nation ! This nation, which in future years will stand 
 high and eminent m the annals of the world, in the magnitude ol' its 
 
 f)Opulation, and in its political and religious influences. If our opponents 
 lad a patriotic feeling they would sny, •' We will give the clergy resnrves 
 to educate the people." If they had a wish to see Canada stand high 
 in literature and general knowledge in ftiiuro generations, they would 
 say this ; but have we discovered a spark from such a soul as thib ? Has 
 there been an intimation that they would relinquish the iNcomc they 
 
 fossess, to educate the people in the solitary seltlementri of this country ? 
 repeat, that if patriotism existed amongst them, it would lead the clergy 
 of the Churches of England and Scotland to relinquish their unjust 
 emoluments, to aid in the great wort of educating the people, witliout 
 respect to sect, or party, or name. The charge of aiding the dark system 
 of the Catholic religion, comes with a bad grace from those who speak 
 of courtesy. When have we done it? Where have wo done it? How 
 have we done it? In every place, and at every time, we have been 
 ready to testify against the corruptions of the Romish Church ; from 
 generation to generation, and through the whole of our public lives, we 
 have been pleading for the rights of all, and we have protested against 
 the domination of that wicked system which is founded in darkness, and 
 leads to cruelty. I must say that I think Mr. Cronyn's reference to the 
 Canada Company, as an argument in support of the present appropria- 
 tion of the clergy reserves, was (ar-letched. Is not the concern of the 
 Canada Company a fair concern of trade ? Did they not give an equiv- 
 alent^-or at least, did they not give a price — for the lands they now 
 possess, according to the demand that was made upon them ? To cite 
 this case, in vindication of the possession of public property, for which 
 not a single farthing has been given, but from which a great number 
 of guineas has been taken, is a logic I do not understand, and which I 
 believe has sprung up from the fountain of selfishness. One argument 
 which may be used in favour of the appropriation which we propose is, 
 I think, unswerable. It is this— that by appropriating the reserves to 
 the education of the people, the benefit would be extended to the whola 
 community. The Church of England, the Church of Scotland, tha 
 Baptist) the Congregationaiist, the Presbyterian, in all their varied divi- 
 aions — all would have the advantages of the plan proposed. Let the 
 Churches of England and Scotland abandon their unjust pretensions — 
 let the rectories he given back to the people— and let the whole of tha 
 rasarires be applied to i^eneral educatiou ; and then what a glorious state 
 of affairs would be produced. There would be harmony instead of 
 flgfile-^union instead of animosity. The people would grow in intelli- 
 
Illl II|I|.W1..(P" 
 
 -WT'W'^V^ 
 
 ':> i 
 
 li 
 
 
 It* 
 
 U:, 
 
 gfence and morality. Religion would flotivith. W« %\\oif\A get higher 
 saif'cs than £40 a year, and we flhoold have the ■ntisfaction of teeing 
 the prerailinfT contention baniihed away. The parliament would meet 
 in love ; the Governor General would not be beseiged at his door with 
 solicitations for rectoricfi. All would stand upon one general level: 
 every valley would be exalted, and every mountain and hill made low; 
 the crooked would be made straight, and the rough places plain ; the 
 glor/ oi' the Lord would be revealed, and all flenh would see it together. 
 — fTinie expired.] . .. , 
 
 Rev. W. Ryerson— T rise to introduce the next and last proposition, 
 wiiich is in these words — 
 
 **Thai the Clergy Roserves have proved a source of bitter contention to the 
 various religioun sectu— ditfuaed a blighting inHuence over the Churches 
 which have participated of them~-iin|>eded missionary enterprise, and the 
 general good of tho province.'* 
 
 If in rising to address you I should manifest a little trepidation, the very 
 peculiar circumstances in which I am placed, the array of talent, eloquence 
 and learning with which I am surrounded, and the very great importance 
 of the subject before us, will, I trust, plead forme on ample apology; 
 more especially as I am constitutionally exceedingly timid, and urn not a 
 skilful or an agreeable speaker on any occasion. I feel that this last 
 eircumstarrce is unfortunate, because all of us know that the relish we 
 may feci for any dish, very much depends upon the manner in which it is 
 served up, my reelings are very diHcrent from those of my most esteemed 
 and talented fri<ind, who has so much delighted this assembly on one or 
 two occasions, I ..m not glad that 1 am here I do not feel comfortable ia 
 the position 'n\ which i am placed In the first place, I feel altogether in- 
 adequate to the duties that are expected of me. In the second place, I 
 feel that the principles which I am called to maintair* are directly averse 
 to the principles entertained by gentlemen in this town whom, of all men 
 in Canada, I most esteem and venerate — men to whom I am under very 
 deep personal obligations, and therefore gentlemen whose feelings I 
 would regard with the same sacred tenderness and concern than 1 would 
 regard my own. However, on this as on all other occasions, duty is im- 
 perative; and if It is the opinion of my countrymen and of my fellow sub- 
 jects, that I should either advocate this subject, agreeably to my own 
 conscientions principles, or perform any other duty, however anxious or 
 unpleasant, the voice of^ the people in that respect would always be the 
 voice of god to me. The subject now before us is one of very serious and 
 very grave importance ; but before entering immediately on to it, there 
 are a few observations that I must make on fhcts that have already tran- 
 spired. In the first place, I cannot but feel highly gratified with the 
 actual — and I will say, if you please, the redeeming — influence of public 
 opinion, and of public sentiment, on the minds, conduct and feelings of 
 respectable intelligent, and impartial men. Every individual must have 
 been dr'ighted with the dignined and gentlemanly conduct of the two 
 reverCi.d rectors of Woodstock and London. All, I say, must have been 
 charmed with the urbanity of their manners, and the dignified seriousness; 
 which has marked all their conduct, from the commencement of this try- 
 ing but most interesting discussion. But observers must be struck with 
 the fact that some pecufiar aqd coastrajning influence has pro 'uod this 
 
108 
 
 'taTiltaf/ ttKte'ofmlndin iTreso gcntlemcji, and has qImo prmtuccd a not 
 unwholviomo cflftict upon him who hav been faceliously called the Title 
 I'nge-^I prefer to aay, the l^rolhce— of the church In this country. Wc 
 havenoibeen in the haMt of experiencinjr the courteiiy, urbnniiy, and 
 kindness which have been manifested on this occasion. One of our good 
 rectorial IHends amused us this morning with an anecdote about Philip 
 Tipsy and Philip Sober; and that anecdote wus mude to have some ap- 
 plication to us. Now these very courteous rectors appear to me some- 
 thing like a boa constrictor, after he hns gorged a bullock: he is then 
 quite harmless, und can be approached without the least danger; but 
 When seeking for his prey, under the itifluenco of hunger, hois a most 
 formidable and dangerous creature indited. There iw the same ditferenco 
 between rectors hungry and rectors 'ull. On all other occasions, they 
 are mueh more agreeable companions and antagonists when they have 
 got their portion and are full, than when hungry, and struggling an* 
 striving to obtain a meal. While, therefore, I cannr-t but admit and ad- 
 mire the very peculiar change that has taken place, I cannot but led that 
 it is in a great measure attributa'^le to this well-known fact in natural 
 lifstory. A man may intrude in my domicile and farm, and I may insist 
 on that man retiring ; he becomes restive and contentious, and Hogs ino 
 and drives me ofi', till he gels possession of half; and having carried Im 
 point, he forthwith becomes the best naturcd fellow in the world. I think 
 I see aparallel between this and the urbanity of the rectors. 1 have but 
 one thing more to advert to, for I am remindtul of the paucity of tunc. It 
 is, the very great change which the present state of atiairs has produce<l 
 on all of us. It will be recollected by every gentleman connected with 
 this important controversy, that it commenced in 1819, in the appliention 
 of the late Bishop of Quebec to the Imperial Government, (under the co- 
 lonial administration of Earl Bathurst) fur a charter of incorporation, to 
 incorporate the clergy of the Church of Englaml for the management of 
 the Clergy Reserves. Up to that time, the Clergy of the Church of En- 
 gland had nothing more to do with the clergy reserves than any otiicr 
 individual, and they had no claim to them until that application for a 
 charter was made. No sooner was that application made, than the body 
 with whom my reverend friend before me (Mr. Bell) is connected, put in 
 a claim for their share, anc commenocd a very warm agitation in favour 
 of it. Of course, the Preface to the Church of England was not altogether 
 good nntured about this new born rival. Again and again, he stated that 
 that agitation originated in the clamour of a disappointed party, who de- 
 sired to get what did not belong to them. Every one knows the not- 
 very-good-natured feelings which existed between these two reverend 
 bodies, in their contention, which extended over a oonsiderahle number of 
 years, and mvolved the display of a very large amount of pugnacity ; for < 
 although the clergy and members of the Chnrch of Scotladd were rather 
 in the minority, they sometimes became as pugnacious as the celebrated 
 son in the Pickwick papers, who shook his fist at his father's back, when 
 his father could not see him. In 1840, fortune favored them, and they 
 obtained what tiiey wanted. We know the story of the greedy lad, who,^ 
 •with his mouth full held both his hands up, and declared he was net half 
 lull yet. But the Church of Scotland had better manners, for she had 
 reared/ 8 wlI lowed her prize before it produced all the soothing effects 
 icf fi\good doie of p.nodytte ; the sodorific effects were immediate. The 
 
pff» 
 
 104 
 
 clcr£;y of that church treat as quietly to •leep ai a well rocked hahfr 
 and never awoke until yesterday, when they appeared anew in th4 per^ 
 son of my reverend fnend (Mr. Bell). The interesting creature wont 
 to sleep in the chrysalis state, and now wakes up a perfect butterfly ; bo 
 perfect that my f snd must almost doubt his own identity. Having 
 rubbed his eyes open after so long a sleep, he tells us that we are trying 
 to deprive him of his rights, and ihat we would trample on a sister 
 church, equal in purity to his own. Like all young converts, he is far 
 more zealous than the fathers before him. I noticed yesterday, that 
 when the reverend rector of Woodstock, with that gentleness, grace, 
 and delicacy which mark all his statements, undertook to attack the 
 voluntary principle, he commenced with a reference to the apostolic 
 church; being a successor of the apostles, he did it as respectfully as 
 possible; and finally he got as far as the time of that very good king 
 Constantine, when he left us with a kind of awe. But when our younger 
 brother jumped up, ho went straight to the time of the Apostles, and 
 referred to the magnanimous benevolence which distinguished the early 
 converts — a benevolence which has elicited admiration from infidels. — 
 He explained that the voluntarv sacrifices of that period proceeded, not 
 from strong principle, but from the fact that those who made them knew 
 that the Roman army would take their property in a few days; ana 
 therefore they gave it away because they did not want it any longer. — 
 That was painful to me ; and I protest in the sight of God against such 
 statements. But while I do protest against these statements of yesterday, 
 1 cannot but admire the increased zeal of the reverend gentleman to-day. 
 The reverend rector:!, feeling the magnitude of the subject, spoke of tho 
 supremacy of parliament and the authority of the crown, with reveence, 
 but with a degree of firmness and decision. But our friend of the Church 
 of Scotland said that kings and queens and parliaments have no rightful 
 power in the matter, and he defied them all. Now this agitation was 
 led on in 1825, 1826, 1828, 1830, 1833, and 1835, by the, Hon. W. Morris, 
 who gave his vote in favour of education and of education alone. This 
 is rather a lemarkable fact, in connection with the course of our friend 
 here, whose new born zeal against the appropriation of the reserves is 
 60 strong as to lead him to care neither for kings, councillors, parliaments, 
 or public opinion. So much for the attitude of parties in thig* discussion. 
 I now proceed to the subject more immediately before me. The first 
 part of the proposition is, " That the clergy reserves have proved a 
 source of bitter i^'ontention." This is true— literally and unhappily true. 
 Not a single parliament from 1824 up to 1838, ever passed one session, 
 without this subject being agitated, with the most anxious feeling. ^e( 
 it be remembered ♦hat in every one of the sessions of 1825, 1826, 1827, 
 ,1828, 1829, 1830, 1833; 1835, and 1836, there were resolutions or reports 
 on the subject ; and in some of them acts were passed to dispose of these 
 reserves according to the wishes of the people. In every instance,, thes^ 
 proceedings were neutralized, not by an upper house, i>ut by a kiod of 
 ghost of an upper house, rererred to by Dr. Burns; many of wIiosq 
 members never read the acts which were sent up to them. AU the 
 efforts of the parliament were thus neutraliv:"«i and treated with cod» 
 tempt, by the shadow of a shade of a kind of departed yhostof an upper 
 house. Most of you know what were the ieeUuffs which tliese procee4- 
 fngs engeiidered between th« two braaches offho Ujgislatvrf* Vj0l 
 
1Q6 
 
 know, too, whnt were tho retulu on tho reeliaj^i of the eoyntj*/, with 
 regard to that Houie, which atood in the face of every improvement, and 
 d every principle of enlarged, and liberal, and uteful legiilation— I speak 
 of whet was called the Legislative Council. Now here are the yery 
 earliest eflfects of these reserves. First, there was a continual collision 
 between the two houses for all that long period ; and, in the next place, 
 this led to a most bitter— I was going to say, an unconquerable — opposi- 
 tion on the part of the House uf Assembly and the country, against those 
 who obstructed their views, and wilfully subverted the rights of the 
 people. These, I say, were the first fruits of the clergy reserves. The 
 voices of your members were raised with unaccountable unanimity for 
 fourteen long years — so much so that when the very last vote was taken, 
 with regard to this question, the Hon. John Robinson and ail his minions 
 in power could only muster a minority of four against thirty-six. While 
 the struggle was thus going on in the legislature, what were the effects 
 on the electors by whom that legislature wt,s returned ? Let the painful 
 and the agitating history ot your country in past years tell, the severity 
 of the ordealj and the travail, and the birth-pangs, that Canada went 
 through in bridging forth the new born freedom which, by the blessing 
 of God we enjoy at the present time. In the meantime, whnt were the 
 effects with regard to the christian community 1 Here I must be allowed 
 to speak plainly, but wiihont any intention of giving offence to the most 
 delicate or fastidious feelings. The effects in this direction were seen in 
 a system of misrepresentation, of vilifying, and of disreputable compa- 
 risons between the church and other bodies of christians — all calculated 
 to excite the most hostile and unpleasant feelings. The Preface to the 
 Church of England Was ;he very first to wake up to this subject, and to 
 give expression to feelings anything but consoling to his fellow christians 
 around him. He declared plainly that the religious teachers of all 
 Upper Canada — excepting only the clergy of the Church of England, 
 and a "very few respectable ministers"'of the Church of Scotland — 
 "come almost universally from the Repulican States of America, where 
 they gather their knov.ledge, and form their sientiments." Considering 
 this circumstance, the Preface said, "it is quite evident that if the 
 Imperial Government does not immediatly step forward with efficient 
 help, the mass of the population will be nurtured and instructed in 
 hostility to our parent church : nor will it be long till they imbibe opinions 
 anything but favourable to the political institutions of England." This 
 was written in 1826. These sentiments were reiterated in the same 
 language' by the same individual, a few years afterwards. They were 
 also reiterated in substance by the clergy of the Church of England, as 
 well as by the J*reface to that'Clergy — Dr. Strachan. Again and again, 
 tiiey were repeated in still more ofJensive language, under the direction 
 of that church, by the petitioners— said to be 6,000--who signed the 
 petition to the King, which was carried to England by Dr. Strachan, 
 out which wa^ subsequently presented to the House of*^ Lords in a way 
 which, I think, is perfectly understood by our friends, the rectors. 
 Amonit other things, the petitioners used this language in regard to their 
 ftUow christians and fellow subjects-- „,^^;;v{ .,sK|,^«.Vnjn^i;i '^ i.H^ h^.> 
 -■■ « We feel with deep concern the great injustice of the efforts now 
 nueking to deprive us of this vested right; nor can we suppress ovir 
 lOidigAi^tioa vihea such ed>rta are vuide to moik this injury upon y^m 
 
 
 \n 
 
 ; !' 
 
■I ' 
 
 1 i k 
 
 106' 
 
 MAjeity^s dotifllj BQbJ)ie(i:\vh^hftv^ clone and isafl^red ib rtiirchTor ' 
 their loyartticig itnd 'princi{:>(6«, clfiefty ^y iJcrsons who have ho coni* • 
 )iaratiye claifii Upon the British Crown, and who are either ignorant 
 of. or ineeinsible to, the fandamental principles -of our glorious Oon> 
 stitution." ^•^> 
 
 And in another parn|;raph of the sarde petition, tlie opponents of the 
 then appropriation of the reserves were styled " enemies ol the prosperity 
 of the British Crown." These hard words were used in reference to 
 20,000 of the best men of Canada, who had signed a counter petition^ 
 What were tne feelings which these things excited^ Ask thnt revered 
 friend (pointing to Mr. Ric»iardson). Rise, sir, (addressing that gen- 
 tleman) and show that person, once perfect, but snattered, and broKen, 
 and mangled in the service of your country. Tell this audience whether, 
 having fought in a British ship, under a British commander, you have 
 forfeited nil claims on the Crown, or whether you are insensible to the 
 value of British institutions. Tell me. ye who say tlial the opponents 
 of the reserves are enemies to the Crown, how many of those who re- 
 ceived medals in honour of their valour and their services in the war 
 with the United States, were members of that church, whose petitions 
 say that they were " ignorent or insensible to the fundamental principles 
 of our glorious Constitution." I have more than twenty extracts marked, 
 all breathing the same disgraceful spirit and feeling* You must not tell 
 me that that spirit is dead. Look week alter week at the Church news- 
 paper, which speaks the Itinguageof the Church, and reveals precisely 
 the same animus. Again : further to show the baneful effects of the 
 clergy reserves, I pledge myself to this asssrably, to prove to any 
 assembly of intelligent men, that this question, and the tyranny, and 
 iraud, and insult connected with it, in the establishment of the rectories, 
 brougot about the rebellion. For that rebellion, you are indebted to this 
 indelible wrong, which has pierced many a heart, and agonized many 
 an honest spirit, from one extreme of our land to the other. Therefore I 
 say, ill language which I think cannot be confuted, that the clergy 
 reserve question iuis been a prolific source of contention and strife, in the 
 community end; in the legislature, from the conimencement of its history 
 up to the present time. If that proposition has been established, my 
 next may be very briefly disposed of— 1 allude to the blighting influence 
 oftliese reserves "over the churches which have participated of them j'* 
 in other words, that the present and past appropriation of the reserves 
 has not produced any good. In support of this, I will refer to a Tew facts 
 which I think fully establieh its truth ; beginning with some statements 
 by clergy of the Church of England with regara to its state in Canada, 
 in 1837. Up to that time, if official reports are correct, that church had 
 received from Great Britain, in various ways— by government grants, by 
 aid from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, &c. — upwards of 
 600,000 dollarci; while other denominations had not cost the Bjitish; 
 ^verpment one York sixpence. These faets staring us in the face, what' 
 were the relative positions of these churches at that tifneT I Will refe^ 
 to three of the leading^' districts of tapper Canada— the H'6m6, Ihe'Goref 
 and the Niagara districts.. First as to the Gor6. The Writer from Whorti 
 I quote states' that that district contain^ 43,920 souls, whoisehurtiber 
 was rapidly increasing; yet in the Whole district, 6t that time, ihere 
 were bat fbui' Resident elergymen, and one travelling misbibnary. Tko 
 
^eNiagara^distrietiattltecame tiiTKi centaCined 3i3,006 louls : along tho^ 
 frontier townships, HVe clergymen wisre vtationed, but in the interior 
 containing 20,000 souls, none had been provided. In the Goro^ 
 district, there was one travelling misflionary. With regard to other 
 districts, I may reitnrk that there wbs no clergyman tor lil\y miles' 
 stretching along the coast of Lake Ontario, Trora Toronto to Dar- 
 lington, oonlaining 10,957 inhabitants. When the Society's Missionary 
 passed through Newmarket to Holland Landing, in May, 1837, those 
 townships, in the immediate neighbourhood of Toronto had received only 
 one visit from a clergyman in tl»e space of seven months. The Preface 
 to the church in Toronto was not very zealous then. In the Gore dis- 
 
 uo aid from the British government ? In the Toronto district, there were 
 at Miat time 4 or 5 Scotch clergymen, or churches; 3 or 4 Baptist 
 clergymen ; 9 itinerant Wesleyan clergymen, besides a large number of 
 locsil preachers, 25 meeting-houses, and 100 meeting places, supplied by 
 jravelling and local preachejs. In the Niagara district, there were 6 
 Baptist ministers, 9 congregalionalists, 7 itinerant Wesleyans. and a 
 number of local preachers, with 15 chapels, and upwards ot 80 preaching 
 places. In the Gore distriot, there were 3 or 4 Scotch ministers and 
 churches, 4 independent mmisters and churches, 10 Wesleyans and 24 
 chapels, besides Baptist ministers, and other means of Grace. Now 
 contrast these two systems^one with all its treasures, the other without 
 them. [Time expired.] 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn-I rise with pleasure to reply to the gentlenmnwho ha» 
 just sat down, and I do so because of the admirable temper which he has 
 displayed, although he has said many things which indeed sound hard to 
 our ears, but which I trust I shall be able to rebut and disprove before I 
 close. Before I commence my main argument, I would notice what he 
 has said concerning the Church newspaper. Some gentlemen here, 1 
 presume— indeed I know — imagine that the Church newspaper is a 
 Church organ. The Church newspaper is a speculation ; it is no church 
 organ, and never has been one. A is a vehicle of information, and is 
 used as such but it is no church organ, and the church is not at alt 
 responsible — nor do I, as an individual, hold myself in the slightest degree 
 responsible — for anything in regard either to doctrine or spirit which that 
 newspaper sends abroad. Let that go to the world. Amongst the many 
 changes which have taken place in the rectors, tha is not a change 
 with me : it has been my opinion for years. With reference to this 
 change in the rectors : the gentleman who has now sat down has declared 
 that a great change has taken place in us; he says that we are now 
 urbane, polite, gentlemanlike,— and he has said something even more 
 flattering than that. Well, it is to be presumed that we were formerly 
 not so, I am not willing to plead guilty to any intentional rudeness te 
 Uny gentleman — either in recent days or in former days. If I have been 
 guilty of any such conduct. eiil;ier directly or indirectly, assuredly I am 
 sorry for it, and will make the most ample apology and reparittion whicly 
 are in my power. But there is one remark which the gentleman made 
 with regard to the change effected in the rectors, which, I think, goes 
 MMne. wa)t to nullify Jtart of his own arf qmeot. He fipiys we hieive cau^^d 
 
^1 
 
 i 
 
 in 
 
 II9& 
 
 fr«at eontention and itrif*. Nsna of m dfonjr tK«t there hae been ^eat 
 eontention in F^rliament, botwef daileny that we hare been the causer 
 of it. We do deny th«t we hare lowed contention amongst the varioua' 
 sects. He has alluded to bitter eontention between the charches of 
 England and Scotland, and has faeetityosly described the concord which 
 was finally produced between those chi>k'cnes, and which it would ha>ro 
 been most desirable to see among all professing christians. I know, as 
 he has said, that misrepresentatbn and vilification have been produced 
 by the clergy reserves, but on which side have these misrepresentation! 
 and vilification been? There have been misrepresentation and vilifica- 
 tion of the very worst kind, in order lo excite passions, to nurture preju- 
 dice, and to perpetuate bad feeling in the minds ol' persons instructed 
 concerning this subject, in the country. The gentleman has frequently 
 referred to a person under a name which I do not like lo repeal. It was 
 not altogether courteous, and I da not like to use it after him. He spoke 
 frequently of the Bishop of the Diocese. . . 
 
 Rev. W. Ryerson— I beg to disclaim all dffensiveness in the word 
 used. I merely referred to the Bishop as the Preface — as leader, or 
 head, of the Church of England. 
 
 Rev. B. Cronyn— There can be no question that in the many agitalingf 
 scenes iu which the Bishop of Toronto has been engaged, m this country, 
 (and he has now been here nearly half a century.) he may have at 
 times given utterance to things which caused feelings on the minds of 
 those concerning whom he spoke. That feeling ought not to prejudice them 
 altogether against a system, or to intluencu them to set themselves in 
 opposition to what is in itself right and just, and what has been proved 
 to hava a righteous tendency in regard to the general condition of the 
 country. The gentleman spoke of the application made lor a charter in 
 1819: he said that then, for the first time, an application was made in 
 order to obtain a charter to incorporate the church corporation, to take 
 care of the reserves, and he slipped in the assertion that ihey never had 
 a claim to them before. Now to say that is a non seqiiUur. They asked 
 for a charier to take care of them; but because there never was an 
 incorporation to take care of them before, therefore they had no claim ! 
 Documents to the Governor (iniroduccd yesterday), sent at the time 
 when the constitutional act was passed, and a variety of concurrent 
 testinqiony, show that there was always a claim made for the church of 
 England — that that claim was always maintained — and that it was not 
 first thought ol^ 1819, when a charter was sought to take care of the 
 reserves. These lands had sufifered great damage throughout the 
 country ; — the property was going to waste because no one had any 
 chaiTge of it; and a charter was obtained in order that some one might 
 exercise the necessary supervision and care. The gentlemen has spoken 
 of Ihe large sums of money paid from England for the clergy here. They 
 have come, however, from the church people at home— they ere volun* 
 Uiry contributions— they afe liberal gifts to ministers of*^ the gospel 
 throqg>hout the colonies of the British empire. The British government 
 contributed a very small portion — and thatonly for a very short time — tp 
 the fQoda of the Propagation Society. Its income naw exceeds £94,G00 
 a-year^ There was a time when the Imperial Parliament gave £14,000 
 «^ev (9 tb0 society, bitt after a perioci that was withdrawn. The fand« 
 
100 
 
 «f which this gentlemiin hM ipoken ai having been contributed hj that 
 society were not contributed by the tlate, and were paid to men wRo 
 nade a bargain with the society when they (eft home. Many of them 
 left preferment, connections, and Tamiiies, and came to Canada—then a 
 wilderness — to continue for the remainder of their days on a stipulated 
 aum — small as it appeared to me, and small as it must appear to every 
 one. £200 a-year was given to each person who came out ; and m this 
 way, th« amount was paid to these individuals, who labored hard and 
 long. Some of those who came out on these conditions under that 
 society have only lately been called hence to another state of being. 
 But it is said that up to the time of the Imperial act, very large amounts 
 were received by the church, and that this corporation got large amounts. 
 Now, it will surprise a great many to hear that up to a very recent 
 period (I don't know exactly the date, but U was much later than the 
 act), scarcely anything wasforthcomingoui of the reserves for the funds 
 of the Church. There were very limited sales, as we know. Their 
 very Very small funds, ana very large expenses ; much larger expenses, 
 indeed, than there ought to have been, considering that the whola 
 amount contributed was very, very small. It is only recently that sales 
 have been effected upon a large scale, and that any large amount has 
 been contributed. When I came to this country, I came as a missionary 
 to the Society for the propagation of the gospel, and as I was placed on 
 iheir list to receive £200 sterling, per annum for my labours, while I 
 remained in this country. Scarcely had I arrived in Canada, when, in 
 consequence of the withdrawal of the grant by the Home Government, 
 difficulties arose in this country, and 15 per cent was deducted from my 
 salary. It was thus reduced to £170, which I have since received at tho 
 current rate of exchange, without any premium. This is my case, and 
 it is the case of many others. Thus, then, the clergy have not been 
 receiving out of the clergy reserve fund any large amount. The church 
 has not been deriving the immense wealth which she has represented 
 as receiving. They have been literally receiving nothing, or next to 
 nothing, out of the Clergy Reserve Fund. When the arrangement was 
 entered into by the government at home with the Gospel Propagation 
 Society, in consequence of the witlidrawal of the grant, the Government 
 stipulated that the Clergy on the list oi* the Society should receive £i70 
 per annum, out of the Clergy Reserve fund. I know there are gentlemen 
 on the other side who came out to this country, and who had stipulated 
 salaries from societies, just as I had. Perhaps they have them still— I 
 don't object to them for it; and if those societies can make an arrange- 
 ment with the Government here to pay them their salaries, instead of 
 receiving them from home, in order that the societies might appropriate 
 ihem to other colonies, I shall not find fault with it. Thai was the 
 arrangement entered into by the Propagation Society. The colonies of 
 Britain are extended, and are increasing m population; their religious 
 wants are daily increasing; and the population of the new Colonies 
 being mainly poor, they require to be supplied with the ministrations of 
 religion. If left vvithout these ministrations, most assuredly they must 
 fiufTer, and a great injury must be inflicted on generations to come. That 
 Society seeks to meet these wants, but it can only do it imperfectly and 
 to u very small degree in comparrison with what ought to be done — 
 miii what it is the bounden duty of the parent country to do. But to the 
 
i: 
 
 (all extent of iti ability, that society 8eek« tosaptjply reli^ioui instrucHon. 
 s^nd. the means of grace, to the poon, resident in the distant colonies oi 
 the empire. What the society haw withdrawn frptn Canada has been* 
 applied to Australia, New Zeland., A(rica) and elsewhere. But we do 
 not murmur. If we had remained on the (undsofthat society, we mighi 
 have been sure that British fuilh wou^d have been kept with us far 
 better than it has been : probably, there would nothavebeen a withdrawal 
 of a portion of nuk* income, as has already taken place ; nor would the 
 whole of it have been, jeoparlized as it js at. the present time. The 
 gentleman who spoke last, alluded to Mr. Moiris, who,, he said, had 
 always voted that the clergy reserve fund should be devoted to education. 
 So far as I know anything of his history, Mr. Morris has been the stren- 
 uous advocate of the Church of Scotland in regard to the reserves :: he 
 was, I believe, the first to ^iut ibrwaid the claim of that church, and he 
 urged it to a successful issue ; but I am not aware that he voted for the 
 alienation of the reserves after he had struggled to obtain the claim of 
 the Church of Scotland. I dont think that he has voted for their appli- 
 cation to educational purposes. The assertion to th? contrary sounds 
 strange in my ears, becai|se I knew that when I hud the honour of a 
 slight acquaintance with him, he was anxious that the portion belonging 
 to the Church of Scotland should be devoted entirely to the religious 
 uses of that Church. The gentleman has alluded to contention in Par- 
 liament, in proof of the proposition before us. But the reference is mcon- 
 clusive. Parliament cannot properly be called a religious body, and 
 "religious sects" are the words of the resolution. We know there has 
 been great contention in Parliament ; but I wonld ask ; Did the Book of 
 (grievances consist solely of the Clergy Reserves ? We are told thai the 
 Clergy Reserves were the cause of the rebellion^ — that the borningg, 
 murders, and loss of life and property which took place on that occasion 
 were caused by the Clergy Reserves. The whole Book of Grievances, 
 consisting of upwards of ninety resolutions, were — we are told — nothing : 
 the Clergy Reserves did all. I do not believe it : it is contrary to fact 
 There were other points which occupied a far more prominent position 
 amongst the grievances put forward by the grievance-mongers of that 
 day ; other things, far more calculated to stir up the feelings o( the people. 
 And now, to serve a purpose, all these thin^zs are to be forgotten, and it 
 is to be said that Ihe Clergy Reserves and the Rectories— solely and 
 entirely — armed man against man, and caused bloodshed and strife. I 
 say that is not ingenuous : it is not borne ont by fact. To prove this, the 
 gentlemen must show that all the other grievances were as nothing, and 
 that they were so considered. We know, however, that McKenzie'a 
 Book of Grievances put prominently forward other grievances, which were 
 the suujects of harangues at the hustings, which filled all the newspapers 
 thronghout the country, which excited the bad passions of the people and 
 ultimately led to the issue which we all so much deplore. The I.everend 
 gentleman also alliuded to the language used in some petition, of which 
 I know nothing. I should be sorry to make use of such language con- 
 cerning any man who had served his country and his king — who had stood 
 forward, as every man ought to do, under the British flag, in any part of 
 the world; I should be sorry to speak of such a mania a disrespectful way. 
 I would rather grasp his hand as a brother, no matter what denomination 
 he belongs to— no matter what name he culled himself) I should hail him 
 
MI 
 
 asafellowcitizeiv— a(«llowBubject-'who haddone his daty under the 
 |{loriouH flaff whick we all so much' love, and which I trutiwephall 
 maintain till death. I have nsver used such lan^ruage as has buen quoted 
 and I think it not right to burthen a discussion ot this kind— which was to 
 have been on principle— with exciting topics of that nature. As to the 
 gentleman present, to whom such pointed reierence was made. I may say 
 that I hi>..ouc him Ihottgh 1 never euw him before : I honour hiin for what 
 has been said of him^ and sorry indeed should I be to think that I had by 
 any means put my I>and to a petition which spoke slightingly or disrespect- 
 iully of him, or others like hwn; and therefore all ihut the last speaker 
 ; has said on this point falls to th« groiiodr [Time expired.] 
 ' Rev. Da. Burns. — ^As allusion has been made to Mr. Morris, I may 
 state that up to 1823 he always advocated the Church of Scotland. 
 In that year he brought forward ten resolutions, concluding with an ap- 
 peal in behalfof that Church. But in 1826 he was- the mover of other sen 
 resolutions, one of which referred to the determined hostility of the Epis- 
 copal Church to the cidiins of the otiior bodies, and another of which 
 affirmed the desirableness of alienating the Reserves from the Church, 
 and applying them to education. From that perioddownward, Mr. Morris 
 held the views which have been ascribed to him by Mr. Ryerson, though 
 he nevertheless continued a friend of the Church of Scotland. * ' 
 
 Rev. J. RoAF.— I presume weall,feel that we are now appraachmg the 
 close of our discussion, or collision. While I have entered into the spirit 
 of the proceedings, have enjoyed the mental treasures that have been 
 brought forth, and have felt very sensibly the urbanity and generosity, 
 and the gentlemanly and christian feeling displayed by those opposed to 
 us, I have all the way through been burihened with a feeling of regret 
 that the Clergy Reserves have occasioned a meeting like this, in which 
 we come together, not to strive to elicit truth with respect to some impjr- 
 tant point oT belief, or of morals, or of action, but to contend on a question 
 which involves a large amount of sectional animosity and ill feeling. [ 
 and my friends came here to help to wrest away what we think now en- 
 dangers the interests of the comniuniiy ; and we are — though perhaps not 
 intentionally — regarded as robbbera, attempting to commit spoliation, if 
 not sacrilege. These gentlemen think we desire to pull down their churches 
 and to commit injustice. On the other hand, we feel that they keep hold 
 thai which the community are entitled to — that they have got their 
 hands into the public treasury, and make up their deficiencies out of taxes 
 levied on us — in fact, that proceeds of lands belonging to the country arc 
 taken and applied to maintain their system, against us. We have a sense 
 of wrong, and our consciences are violated in this respect, as ♦heir con- 
 sciences are violated by the eflbrts we make. Here are some of tne results 
 of the Chergy Reserves, and I think that they fully justify the proposition 
 we are now considering, and by which we are reminded of the fact, 
 that for the last twenty-six years Upper Canada has been in a state of 
 agitation, in consequence of the manner in which these Reseives have 
 been appropriated. What is the fact ? are not the denominations separated 
 here in a manner most painful ; while in the United States, the same 
 denominations exist, generally speaking, in a state of far greater amity. 
 And why is there a difference 1 They hold the same principles there and 
 here : but we here are estranged because of this poUtical interference — 
 
I w 
 
 6e«fttti« of thifl BBrntte^ of Olergf ReMriref— b«eft\tte 6t tlieefloH* 6f§(ihi% 
 to Be({tiire pubiito proberty, and to aet it apart for eccleiiattical uiet^» 
 ' beeauso otrHsra feel that they ar« not put upo<i a level in thit respect, and 
 if they were, their conscieneei wouki prevent their taking any portion of 
 ftich property. Ifcerlnin denominatisns did not avail themselves of this 
 inequality, and take these Reserves, they would not be separated from 
 other evangelical denominations. The Free Church, when in the Chtireh 
 of Scotland, stood aloof from us ; bnt no sooner did it get rid of this thick 
 rlay, as Isaiah calls it, than the Free Church became one of us- In' To- 
 ronto when we call a public meeting, w« know who will come — we know 
 that we shall have the presence of ine denominations that do not touch 
 the Reserves. Let a denomination oiioe touch these Reserves, and they 
 forthwith stand apart from us on temperance, anti-elavery, and all other 
 great moral and social questions ;; whereas, they join us if they have not 
 had anything to do with the Clergy Reservea. Such is the influence of 
 this system. It has operated on churches in a similar manner — injur- 
 ing and oflen convulsing them. I am sure that many around me 
 can call to mind churoheu which were once great and useful, 
 but which were torn in piecee by this circumstance. Not 
 many montlie age, a gentleman came to me and ntked to take land 
 to endow my own Churck. Had I done so, what would have been tha 
 effect ? Had I been suspected of being capable of doing it, a broud line 
 would have been d.'awn between myself and other ^^enominal»ons. For- 
 tunately I have got properly whicli eaved -nie from tempiatiop, but many 
 others are loss fortunate.; and I know that my brethern watch one 
 another with more or less uiveasinoes, because of these infamous tempta- 
 tions that are held out te them. JVo sooner does ihe government list 
 come out than we look to see what denominations are taking aid from the 
 Reserves. Such, I repeat, are the inJuriou« influence of the system. It 
 has operated similarly through all the settlemenis of the country. Years 
 ago, when hardy pioneers penetrated the recesses of the forest, ihey were 
 'foilened by pJain missionaries of the gospel, who sought to partake of 
 their poverty, not of ease and corafort,. Small churches were thus formed, 
 and a great work accomplished. When settlements were jbrmed, the 
 influence of the Reserves enabled parties to come in and make a stand 
 against these poor but good men. These new-comers had around thera 
 the weight of official consequence and importance: tliey established the 
 official class of the neighbourhood:; every respectable man that came 
 there must belong to that narrow circle, or be beyond the reach of office. 
 Many settlements in the country were rent in pieces by I his circumstance. 
 Those who disliked H. and complained of it, were charged with disaffec- 
 tion— with rebellion. I came to this Country about tlie time of the 
 rebellion, and the general opinion of all with whom I conversed was, that 
 it was raafirily owing to the Rectory and Reserve question (the Rectories 
 , had been established the year beCore.) I need not refer to the collisions 
 that took plafce between the two Houses of Parliament. We know that 
 the kHoiise of Representatives and the Legislative tJlouncil were at 
 daggers dra.wing through a long series of questions, upon and in conse- 
 quence of this question. The Legislative Council plainly negatived 
 what the people, through the House of Assembly, had done ; but never 
 condescended to make any proposal of their own. Again : this proposition 
 says that the Clergy Reserves have impeded missionat*y enterprii^. — 
 
118 
 
 tnitend of gentlemen relying upon the law oriove, they hare been apheU 
 by the govor'Mijent. Instead oCcuIiivniing missionary feelinaf, ihcy hatrt 
 made ilio groveriiment a missionary Society. Missionary feelinj; has been 
 ■lultified and rherUed. Instead ol" gentlemen beinf? supported by the 
 prayers and contributions ofilie bodies they represented, iliey have romo 
 dependent on the government; and tl.us lias misnionary feeling been 
 strangled and thwarted. The system h is gone on twenty-six years, and 
 we now sec as much heat ami anger as were in existence prior to tha 
 ■eltlemeni oflSJO. One gentleman has said that that will be an unhappy 
 period when thenc reserves shall be wiihdr.uvn Tom their present appli- 
 cation. I thmk the contrary. The pc'iod when the spirii to which I Imve 
 adverted shall be quenched, will not be an urdmppy period. I hope tha 
 time will come when we shall be enabled to meet thi.se gentlemen, not 
 to strive to get from them their properly, but to join with them in nd- 
 vUncing .natters of common interest, in relation to the evangelization of 
 the country. Gentlemen asi( us what the voluntajy principle is Mi- 
 nisters of the gospel are actually putting in doubt tlie elllcacy of the law 
 of love— tl)o sulfiiiiency of voluniary contributions for the support of 
 God's cause. The belief that sufficient cannot be raised without com- 
 pulsion ; in defiance of the pliiin fact that the voluntary principle is the 
 only one of which the New Testament speaks— the only law establiahed 
 by Jesus Christ. Tlie time will come when these gentlemen wdl no 
 longer wsU, What is the voluntary principle ? — when they will find in ibeir 
 own ejtperience and ohsjervation, that that principle issuffirient tu employ 
 all the ministers that God's grace bestows on a church; for it isa fact- 
 thai there has been no community yet pointed out. in which the funds 
 were not equal to the gifts that Go^i has bestowed. It is true the fnnds 
 may not be equal to the evaiigelization of the world ; but neither are the 
 talents and grace which Ihe community possess equal to thtit task. Wc 
 shall see a better state of things than this, but it will not be without 
 agitation; and baneful as this agitation is, I confess I am ready to do 
 anything F can to stir up the people to endeavour to gel these chnrches 
 to cease their reliance upon government, and to cast themselves on the 
 people. I Riy I am ready lo help the people to take aWay these battle- 
 ments, for they are not the Lord's — to take away these earthly provisions, 
 which are so injurious to them, so wrongful to others, and so poismous 
 to polities and religion. It has been said that if the reserves wero 
 withdrawn, the Church of England could not be supported in the colony. 
 Wliy, I believe thatifthey were withdrawn now, the Church of England 
 would show an amount ol activity which she has never yet shown in this 
 colony. The experience of the Free Chtarch of Scotland has proved 
 this. She has brought forth wonders of energy and wealth since her 
 separation from the state; and the Church of England would surely not 
 do less. The breihern that were left behind by the Free Church will do 
 as much, when the time of trial comes. Whatever help I can give shall 
 be directed to cast these churches on their own resources, and the aid 
 which God's providence may confer upon them ; for is it not a fact that 
 ill feeling is generated, and the improvement of the Province retarded, 
 by these reserves? The last speaker told us very distinctly— but per* 
 haps unintentionally— that the present system set colony against colony* 
 He said he was sent out by a society at home, along with other roissioo* 
 tries, that the society had seot them out, got the government to sapport 
 
114 
 
 them and that Ihen, the fum'if which were to hnva come to thii folony 
 were given to olh»»r cnlonios ; so that other colorties are receiving benrfit 
 at ihe expence ol'Caniitiii, ncronlinir lo iliis KyHtem. Is not thai an liijii- 
 riow a(!l with reg;ir«l lo as up a colony in comparison with. iituJ in rehiilon 
 to olhere — coIomIcs toward.^ ■' lioui we would wi^h to feel true afrcclion 7 
 I wish and hope tliat we may pan from ur brctiiren on llie other Hide 
 with a pcrieci nruhTstandirij;. They do not sen how we can have con- 
 icieniimit! 8crnph^f» on this enhjecf. I say thai for the pnhiic property to 
 be taken ("or ilie pnppf of the reliL'ion ol ihcRe gentlemen is wronjp to 
 us; afid llit'V wooM no (h)nhf participate in the (eelin<^ if ihi-ir property 
 —or rather puhlic pmperty, in wliich they are inte-csied — were takm 
 and applied to onstaiii my relis;ion. In that respect my conscience is 
 violated hy what is lakt-n undpr this pystem. it is a jjrosn wronjj to take 
 pnhhe p operty. and not to let lioman Catholirs nhare in it. The Roman 
 Catholics have a share in the <roveriimeat — 'hey contriluite their share 
 of the taxe.-? — and they have an interest in this property ; and lo «aUe this 
 propi-rty wholly Iron) theai, an-l ap|)ly ii to Pmiestants alr)iie, ie a fraud 
 and a wron^. The Roman ('ailioiici? are as much eniiiled to it aa any 
 of us, except as far as the wording of ilie acts of parliament goes* Ab- 
 stract justice requires that they fihould pjiai-e ilie restTves, as well as the 
 Protestant-'. '^ le other ohjeclioa wlii<'li I have to the existitig syntedi 
 ip, that it is a tj>stein olhyporrisy. Put up Episcopacy and knock down 
 Preshyterianisu) — or pui! down hoili, and put Methodism or Congregii- 
 tionalism in their places — and you have the merit of consistency, i( of 
 nothinijr else.. But our prest-nt tsy-steni is a system ol" jjublic hypocrisy, 
 because it treats all doc.trines alike. The slate regards nil as equally 
 convein'ent — the people ihiid< all equally true — the philosopher deems all 
 equally false. That was said of the heaihrnism of the early ages, but I 
 fear, 11 is equally true of our present system. It I" vain to expect that 
 you support religion, when you recoginze all creeds, and build up one to 
 counteract and desirny another. My lime is expired, and I can therefore 
 only repeat that I very much admire the spirit which his been shown 
 here, and that I trust that we shall part with a perfect understanding of 
 each other. , . . 
 
 Rev. F. FHvANS— We hear a good deal about the excitement and irri- 
 tation which are alleged to provud upon this subject. Now it must be 
 remembered that a report of our proceedings will go forth to the com- 
 munity, and my hope is. that it will go into every house in the Province, 
 and be read. It was with that desire that I courted this public discus- 
 wofi, and I do not regret it. I rejoice at it ; and I feel satisfied that when 
 this report goes abroad, it will be tound that a large proportion of ihs 
 people will read about a degree ol excitement on this question which 
 they have never ftii. I know, indeed, that the feeling in regard to it ii 
 not nearly so strong in the remote parts of the country, or amongst tiis 
 farmers generally, as it has been represented to be. Any such excite- 
 mAnt exists only on the occasion of public meetings or of a general 
 electioil, when men are under the influence and guidance of those whom 
 r would call demagogues — using the term witliout any desire to throw 
 odiii'm upon parties alluded to. At such times, and on such occasons, 
 demagogues labour hard to convince the people that they are sufleriog 
 drMdlully under the influeuce ofsome grievance ; b(i t, notwithstandiDg 
 
I , 
 
 115 
 
 thii circnmstftnce, I declnrp thnt no response prorecds from the hnbita- 
 tions ol'ilu! lurid, to ilie ni-Hcrli') ihnt (liH clcray rfRrrve qtirilinn pfo- 
 diicj^s irntaiion. or crt'iiii's a nri. ^fNiiirtriiiff Irorn ii f^'riiiVuiuH'. Enoucrh 
 of lliifj ttiiilirp. Nexl. I vvinli loR'ty Jiat these {^'ciillnnon liavo only 'o 
 make a l)cL;iiiriiti^ on their own didc, and (licy will ahaiK much ol' which 
 they ••oinplain. They cotnidiiiii ol' jealousy and ill-rcclini;. and tln-y 
 dcchire ihui ihi'y vvairh dik; nnuiluT lo hcc '.vlu'ihcr any inan nmonirut 
 lliem tal(«'8 ii uliara (d'lliw rlertry rti-ervrs. They nay that lh»'iii(« reacrvui 
 OMj[jhl lo he wholly appli-.-d to ihc jmii post's orfilurai ion. niid that they 
 will not tal<e thoir rthaic! for any oil"'!" P'irpns(\ Now lut tlieni go iim- 
 ledly to tho Plovincial atal imperial Pai liaaienlH. and «ay, " (iive UB 
 leave to 8urr«Midi!r our pari ol'll t; ri'fitMvca for cilucuiional purpoHrs: let 
 our share ijo lo this olijccl ; we are a maixnaniaious sei ol' men — we do 
 not want a Fix|)tMice ofyourn — we are will;n<: to prove our liberality hy 
 Burreraieriiig vvhal is ourn for ilm puhlit; (rood — and we hope that the 
 Churches orEn|»land and Scotland will some day do tho sam«'." Now 
 what ia there lo prevent such a rourKe as this? Ii i.-? quite open to you 
 —we cannot ohject to it — uiid by ]»ursuiiigit you will show your ainceriiy 
 in this mailer. > ... ■ . 
 
 Rev. Ur. Burns— We arc nil wlllinof. 
 
 ■'•■» 
 
 Rev. F. Evans.— Well, it is n barijaiu : do ns you picnpe with your 
 share of the reserves, and net hold of the rest if you can. But, forsooth, 
 the reserves have exercist'd "a hiighiintr inllui'iice" over the churches! 
 I can only say that there has been no bliirhtiiior influcnc ^ over the Chuich 
 of England, in connection with the reser/es, and ( understand that the 
 case is the same with retjard to the Church of Scotland. The Church 
 of Englaral has been (loioi^ her work. VVc all admit the weakness of 
 human aijencies, and thai as individual.^ we disi-hari^e our functions and 
 duties with very great imperfection. I believe ihai we are einrere^ in 
 the a<-knowledg(nci!t of iliis, and I am sure that other gentlemen feel 
 the same. Wo would all say, '• Enter not into judgmeiii with us." Re- 
 ference has been made by Mr. Ryerson to the state of the Church of 
 England in 1837, but his statements on that head were entirely beside 
 the question. IJp to that period we had had nothing to do with the 
 reserves. He says there were very few clergymen then. However that 
 may have been, I am happy to state that there arc now a great many 
 more. In 1837, wc numbered about 40 clergymen. VVe now number 
 150. In the Gore and Niagara districts, the nuaiber have been trebledj 
 and in other districts the proportionate increase haiiheen eiill greater. 
 There arc now, as I have said, 150 clergymen in the 2.2 disirieis. These 
 facts are pretty plain proofs that the Church of Enghind has not expe- 
 rienced very severely the blighting influences about which so much has 
 been said. On 1^*6 contrary, we have felt beneliiied by vvriat we receive 
 from the reserves, and from the Gospel Propagation Society ; and wa 
 desire, sincerely and conscientiously to devote our energies to the ad- 
 vancement of ihtf Redeemer's kingdom throughout the land. This ia 
 not only our dasire. but the desire of the Church generally. Dipsontin^ 
 geoilemen ought to ask ihem.selves a question. They say they feel 
 the blighting influences that have been spoken of; but are they quite 
 ■ure that we are to blame ? May not they be to blame? Is the rector 
 of Woodstock to blame, because persons pulled dowa his iencef, and 
 
 t 
 
no 
 
 daitreyed his crop efontif Lst our friends eonitder this questton, and 
 answer it. We know ihat n spirit prevails in our corrupt hearts, which 
 leads us to be iliflsiitiHned with liio apparutit prosperity of oiht'rs. We 
 innsl not ib'i;ei that there are ftucii sins nn envy, hairud. and uiiRhnritii- 
 bleness. 1 do not proHUinu to briti]; any charge ufthi-s kind a^aiiiKt others; 
 but I do say, let nur I'riendfl, and lei u.s, look at liotao, niul try to do our 
 duty, witbout watrliiii^ oilierd. Let um eee if we caniiol coiiirivo to bo 
 Zeiilous, devoted, riiiihrut ininislerH of the gospel ol Cliridt, rioivviihstnnd* 
 ing thi* alleged ''niij^hty incubiia," and iiutvvitliHiaiidin^ thu I'act itint 
 ■oine ofud do reoeivt) aid IVoiii ilie cler^ry reriurvr.s. Miirli hati been 
 •aid respec.liiii; the cordiality which exi^tii atnuii^Ht din'tTunt denoniiim* 
 tiooH It) the Uiiiied States. iXuvv I know thai tlu^ri^ in a littlo nl' tho 
 spirit of rivalry in that country, i know that cvcii tlicre, tli< re an* eoino 
 deapetately lii</h cbnrchinen, who are inclined to look down upon men of 
 other dunoininaiions in a w ty wliicli I Ibr one am noi diispoaed lo i\o. But 
 thiti IS foreign to the qufi^tion. It was asHcrtcd here to-day that the 
 endowment ofTrinity Cliureli, New York, it) wnrih all tho cltTjiy reserves, 
 yet 80 tUr as I know, it has proved no source orcontemion aiiionnr the 
 various religious eects. uiid has dilFuKed no bitghiing influences over tho 
 episcopal church itself. It has not impciled iiiiKHioiiary enterprise, nor 
 has it injpedcd or injured the general good ollhe United Siate«>. or of tho 
 State ofNew York. On the contrary, the corporation ol Triniiy Clunch, 
 New York, is obliged to limit its wealih within a certain amount: they 
 must not have an income beyond cer'ain defined linuts ; and the conse- 
 quence is, that they are per|elually (hjiiig acts of the greatest liberality, 
 benevolence, and piety. They apply a largo surplus Ibr the difsiminaiion 
 of the gospel in various parts of ilie State, and I am told that tlu-y havo 
 three or lour tnissionaries m ^3iciligan. I may here stale, perhaps, what 
 wn6 recently remarked to one of my reverend brethren by a genileman 
 who was an advocate of what is called anne.xatioit — though I hope and 
 believe that that fever ha^ now subsided. "Sir," said the gentleman I 
 ■peak oi, to my reverend brother, "you arc standing in your own light 
 when you discuunicnance annexation : you should encouragu it, Ibr it it 
 were Drought about, your endowments woi Id be secured lo your church 
 forever." There can be no doubt, indeed, that in the United States, tho 
 course of legislation in regard to endowments is directly opj^oHite in that 
 which these gentlemen propose to enforce here. In the stute of Vermont, 
 an endowment granted to the Gospel Propogalion Society was taken pos- 
 session of by the state at the revolution, and was fur many years supposed 
 to be lofi but the Gospel Propjgation Society transferred tfie right lo the 
 Episcopal Church of Vermont, whose nuihorilies appealed to the Supreme 
 Court; and the consequence was ihnt they got back an equivalent, wliich 
 is now rapidly improving in value, and will shortly constitute a 
 valuable endowment of the Episcopal Church of Vermont, The same 
 took place in Maryland. The endowments of the Church of England in 
 that State were confiscated at the revolution, but were afierwanls sued 
 for in the Supri me Court, and recovered. These statements are sub- 
 ■tantially correct, although fbr their perfect accuracy 1 cannot vouch. It 
 is evident, then, that these much talked of*' blighting influences" are not 
 inherent In the system of endowments. They have no necessary rela- 
 tion to the qaeitioDi and are coupled with it merely to suit, the pur* 
 
IIT 
 
 peyiof the advfiriRrlM of tho Clergy Rfterve*. With retpect to thtt 
 injury which is uMefred has be in RiiHlaiiicd in thiflprovinc<> in conscqiienro 
 o( the cMHlowfnciit Dl'ih*' Cleruy llfsorvt's. 1 Bhiill tniTfly rrnmrl<, ihut 
 ■oinn yt'iirt nun. whoii lh« IuikIm of the prnv net* wrre coiisiilert'd to he of 
 cx''(M'»litiyly hitio viihic. ihcy were i;riiiili'(l iti iniiiiciiHL' qiiuntiliua to nl- 
 nioHl I'vcrybdily thai ufkiul lor Ihcm. I vvam cilVrrod l.L'DUnereH of laiul 
 when I fiiHt catui', as a privaiu gi'Mut Iroin ihi? crown — 1 thought they 
 were ol'litilt! vilu.i tad W'»uld not hivo ll»i;tu, hut I have; since ri'pcnted of 
 my lolly. At that time, 1 npeat. grants olpulilin latul were madt; to al- 
 mortl everybody who snught thetn. and il'ilii! reserves had not been set 
 npurl as tiiey were, it in probable that iht; whole would have ui thiii way 
 fiillen iiito private haiidtf. Many of our niont wealihy aiul reepcclat)lo 
 ■ettlerti, both churehnuui and diflsentern — I'-Kiservafivi-s and relorinors— 
 can lii-ar testimony to the advantaires vvhioli the njtiiein of reserves jinvo 
 conferred upon the eomniunily. iXundxTs ul setilrrd in the Talt>ot di«- 
 Irjci are now living in the enjuymeni of Cnrtuii which they purchased at 
 $2 or,$i ati acre, which are now worth $40, but of which they never could* 
 have avaihid themselves, ifthose laiuJs had not been reserved. I say, 
 then, that, in nmny senses, ana in many points of view, the rountry hna 
 been greutly benefitted by the existence of these reserves. [Time expi- 
 red.] 
 
 Kev. Dr. Burns hero intimated that his engagements compelled him 
 -to retire, which he did a i'ler uu expression of good feeling towards all 
 parties. 
 
 •Ilev. B. CnoNYN, — I regret that Dr. Burns has withdrawn fori find on 
 my notes an allus^ion to the Free Church, made by Mr. Roaf. If I do 
 not entirely mirfunder^ and the principle of the Free Church, they main- 
 tain the right of the church toriiceive atisisiance from the state, and they 
 also mainiain the duty ol the state to support the church. I know that 
 Dr. C^'halmei's did this, and I know that his views on this subject were 
 «lmrcd by ii:uny of those eminent men who wiihilrew from the Church of 
 Scotland on the question of patronage. Mr. Hoof has said that we oujyrht 
 not, at this day, to ask what the voluntary principle is. We 
 do not want to kni>w for ourselves, but wo want to know 
 what gentlemen on the other side mean by it. I asked ye<i- 
 terday whether they mean what Dr. Chalmers culled free trade in re- 
 ligifin, or the bounty a stem, as he calls voluntaryism when properly in- 
 terpreted. W'lhii (gentlemen mean free trade in religion, I would juat 
 read therw a low ords from tl e writinj^s of Dr. Chalmers. . ,,i,^ ),,,{] 
 Ksv. J. Roaf. — None of us holds such a principle. 
 Rev. W. Ormston — In one sense we 4u, but not in the sense which 
 Mr. Cronyn hunches to it. l, ,. ; 
 
 Rev. B. CRONyN.--VVelJ, J will read the extract at all events, Dir. Chai- 
 ners said — 
 
 •' i'liid is the good ol an ebtabhshment. The people, instead of being lefk 
 to go in quest of religious instruction, have by iismeanslhe instruction 
 i[ pbtruded upon them. Generally speaking, they have not so much of de- 
 sire or demand for the article, as that they shall thvmsclves originate a 
 naovemenl towards it, and far less travel the whole disiance. and make 
 • • «il the sacrifices necessary to obtain it. In the vast majority of instan- 
 '^ •taocefi would neither the requisite trouble be taken, nor the requiiittt 
 
 .1^ 
 
 I 
 
 1^ 
 
 % 
 
118 
 
 expense be incnri ad. They have not encugh of native appetite to 
 create an efTfclive tlemand for the loorl ; and unlike to the corpoml, 
 the want uf'thi^ lood, iostcaJ ofWheiiing the spiritual appetite, would 
 only (lull uriil deadfn it the. more. We have, ihcrofurt' •- donht, that, 
 on llie event o( (Mir e8lal)lis!iiiiirit heing swept away, and a mere Hy«- 
 tern ol Iree trude Iteiiig pulisululcd in its plaeu. The moral eff»ict 
 would be tremendous. That wliich gave aniivity and healthful im- 
 pulse to the commerce of our land, would be of withering efftjct upon 
 Its Christianity. Let the machinery, if iieedl'nl. be acutated by the 
 force and the lire of another i^rinciple — let all its rust and other un- 
 hingements be done away — let it be provided with more efficient 
 workmen — and evei thing he done, no that ii perform its evokuona 
 more sweetly and yet more powerfully than before. But let it not be 
 taken down. It never will be replaced by the spontaneous act, or kept 
 in operation by the spontaneous habit, of the people. It may be better 
 wrought at one time, and worse at another; bnt, even with all lis cor- 
 rupt ions, our establishment is a stay and a safeguard ; and a helpless 
 and headlong degeneracy, would ensue from the demolition of it." . ^ ,, 
 
 I think I may put Dr. Chalmers against the gentlemen who have gone 
 before, a.id who discover such wonderful evils in establishments, and 
 even in endowments. Dr. Chalmers was a clear-sighted man — as clear- 
 sighted as they are; his mind could grasp everything as well as theirs. 
 What I have read was not the production of his early days, but it was 
 the matured and deliberate opinion at which he arrived after long years 
 of experience in the church. I will read another short passage from the 
 same writer, in his work on Political Economy. s'—ij. / ; roitir;. 
 
 " If the ecclepiastical jstablishmeiits ol our land shall be of the riditiber 
 which are destined to fall, and that because the temporalities which be- 
 long to them have been pronounced, by the oracles? of our day, as an 
 oppression and a burden on the general population, th en instead of truth 
 being their judge or their executioners, they shall have Isillen at the 
 hand of cunning and deceitful witnesses; They shall have perished in 
 the midst of strong delusion, at llie mandf te and by the authority of a 
 lie. Never, without the peculiar facilitieo and resources of such an insti- 
 tution, wid there be a full supp'y of christian instruct on in the land. 
 A practical heathenism wili spread itself over the rural provinces, and 
 will deepen and accumulate more and more in our cii'es. Whatever 
 the coming changrs in the state of our society may be, there is none 
 that would more fatiilly speed the disorganization and downfall of this 
 great kingdom, than if the hand of violenr-e was put forth on the rights 
 andrevenues of the Church of England. Even with the present distri- 
 bution of the wealth, it will be found that the income of htr higher as 
 well as her humbler clergy has been vastly over-rated." 
 
 It is a common trick to overstate the incomes of our clergy. Four mil- 
 lions have been spoken of, as received by the Church of England. We 
 know Irom the best authority that no such amount is enjoyed. With all 
 its riches, the average income of the Clergy in England is by no means 
 large j it is very moderate indeed. Dr. Chalmers added — 
 
 " We cannot imaging a policy more ruinous than that vv lich would im- 
 pair the maintenance of a church tha' ^na long been illastrious for its 
 
119 
 
 \ 
 
 
 learning, and that promises now to be the dispenser of greater blessings 
 
 *o the people ihan at any termer period of its history, by theundoubted 
 
 increase ol its virtue, and piety." 
 Such is the testimony — sueli was the matured opinion — of the great Chal- 
 mers, writing it not lor his own church — not for his own favorite — hnlfor 
 the Church of England ; and I think thai we may take sides with him. 
 We may take side with these who have stood by him, and maintain it, 
 without feur olany sijjfidh or impure inofivi-a vvhiih may he attributed to 
 us. \Ve may Ktaiid by ihyse niun who iiave sliown tlial when principle 
 called ''lom, ihey were nble and willing to givt up all endowments, in 
 order Uiat they (tiight stand upon principle. This pra<'iice has existed in 
 our own church, too. Our clergy have ever consistenily maintained the 
 endowments of the church, hut when principle calleH for a sacrifice, they 
 have bpen found ready to go to i.i:e stake. Cranm-r was the main instru- 
 ment of reforn)aiion in our church and he suffered at the stake. The 
 very men who maintained ondowmonta at the lime when the hberttes of 
 church were invaded, and tlie interests of religion prevailed — I speak cf 
 the time of James — heeome non-jurors ; and the Ar(;hbishop of Canter- 
 bury, with seven bishops, and a vast number of the clergy resigned their 
 benifices. and retired into poverty. Let principle be at slake, and we of 
 the Church of England will take our stand' by principle; we will nail our 
 colour to the <aast; and wo will prove that when principle and duty call, 
 we will obey at any sacr o and at any peril. I believe it is our solemn 
 duty to stand by principi' i this instance, to maintain those endowments 
 with which, by the pro. i i,tice ofGod. our church is blessed, and to resist 
 any efforts that may h<' :u .Je to depri/e ourselves and posterity of them. 
 I cannot reconcile o 'uy conscience what we have heard from one gen- 
 tleman, to whom : : was offered for the endowment of his church. His 
 church is not too ; ii — he does not say that it is; but he has private 
 means, wnich ena' Li him to do vviihout endowments. But the man who 
 comes a'' J him i y not have private means, and I say, therefore, thai it 
 W3 his duty tr . ,ve availed himself of the offer which was made to him. 
 He might have preached Christ crucified as faithfully as before; while 
 his successor — who may have no private means — would have been 
 placed by the endowment in a position ol great usefulness— untrammelled 
 by want and f>ee from that dependence which the voluntary system 
 must bring on those who adhere to it. 
 
 The discssuion having now closed, the Chairman and Assessors lefif 
 their seate. and IVlr. Ford, Warden of the town, was called upon to as- 
 sume the chair. 
 
 Rev. F. Evans moved that the thanks of the meeting be tendered to 
 ¥>r. Powell, and the two gentlemen who had assisted hirn, for the impar- 
 tial and effective manner in which they had discharged ihe arduos duties 
 thaj had devolved upon them during the tw3 days proceedings. 
 
 Rev. J. GuNPRY seconded tie motion, which was carried by acclama- 
 tion. 
 
 The Doxology was sang, the benediction having been pronounced by 
 Mr. Evans, the proceedings terminated.