IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) /y # .^ .^% rA 4^ 1.0 I.I l££|28 ■2.5 US ^^ ■■■ itt Ui |Z2 2.0 Hi lU 111 140 ^>. /: # A "W '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation M WIIST MAIN STRUT WU'iTIR.N.Y. I4S»0 (716) •73-4303 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/iCIVIH Collection de microfiches. vljfc- Canadian tnttituta for Historical IMicroraproductions / Institut Canadian da microraproductions hiatoriquaa ! : Tachnica) and Bibliographic Notaa/Notaa tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta haa attamptad to obtain tlta baat original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction. or which may aignificantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. □ Colourod covara/ Couvartura da coulaur I I Covara damagad/ D D D D n Couvartura andommagia Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou pallicuMa r*n Covar titia miaaing/ La titra da couvartura manqua pn Colourad mapa/ Cartaa gAographiquaa an coulaur Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) r~n Colourad plataa and/or illuatrationa/ D Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa 1% coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ RalM avac d'autraa documanta Tight binding may cauaa ahddowa or diatortion along intarior margin/ La rm llura aarria paut cauaar da I'ombra ou da la diatoraion !• kNig da la marga intiriaura Blank laavaa addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poaaibla. thaaa hava i^i'tm omittad from filming/ II aa pi:iii.* qaia eartaniiM pagaa blanchaa ajoutiaa tora d'un® <39tauration apparaiaaam dana la taxta. mala, loraqua cala Atait poaaibla, caa pagaa n'ont paa 4t« filmAaa. Additional eommanta:/ Commantairaa supplAmantairaa; L'Inatitut a microfilm^ la mailiaur axamplaira qu'il lui a ttt poaaibla da sa procurar. Laa dAtaiia da cat axamplaira qui aont paut-Atra uniquas du point da vua bibliographiqua. qui pauvant modif iar una imaga raproduita. ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dana la m^thoda normala da fiimaga aont indlquia ci-daaaoua. r~l Colourad pagaa/ D Pagaa da coulaur Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa andommagiaa Pagaa raatorad and/01 Pagaa raataurAaa at/ou pallicultea Pagaa diacolourad, stainad or foxai Pagaa dicolorias, tachatAaa ou piqu*aa Pagaa datachad/ Pagaa ditachAaa Showthrough/ Tranaparanca Quality of prir Qualiti inAgala da I'impraaaion includaa auppiamantary matarii Comprand du material aupplimantaira Only adition availabia/ Saula Mition diaponibia □ Pagaa damagad/ Pagaa n~| Pagaa raatorad and/or laminatad/ nri Pagaa diacolourad, stainad or foxad/ j I Pagaa datachad/ rri Showthrough/ r~*1 Quality of print variaa/ rn includaa auppiamantary matarial/ r~n Only adition availabia/ Pagaa wholly or partially obacurad by arrata ■lipa, tiaauaa. ate. hava baan rafilmad to anaura tha baat poaaibla imaga/ Laa pagaa totalamant ou partiallamant obacurciaa par un fauiliat d'arrata, una palura. ate, ont it* filmiaa A nouvaau da faqon A obtanir la maillaura imaga poaaibla. toi Th< pm of filn Ori boi thfl aio ott fin aio or Th( ahi TIP wti Ml dif am ba rig rai Thia itam ia fllmad at tha raduction ratio chackad balow/ Ca documant aat film* au taux da reduction indiqu* ci-daaaoua. 10X 14X 1IX ax 26X 30X \y 12X 1«X »x 24X 28X 32X tail* du >difier una nage TiM copy film«d iMra has bami raproduead thanks to th« ganarotity of: Douglas Library Quaan'a Univarsity Tha imagaa appaaring haia ara tha baat quality posaibia comidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract spacifteations. Original copiaa in printad papar eovars ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or iiluatratad Impraa- sion, or tha back covar whan approprlata. All othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or iiluatratad Impraa- slon, and anding on tha last paga wi^ a printad or iiluatratad imprasston. L'axamplaira film* fut raprodult grica A la g4n4roaM da: Douglas Library Quaan's Univarsity Laa Imagas suhrantaa ont 4t* raprodultas avac la plus grand soin. compta tanu da la condMon at da la nattati da I'axampialra film4, at an conformit* avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Laa axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura on papiar aat ImprlmAa sont filmte an comman9ant par la pramlar plat at an tarminant soit par la darnMra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou dllluatration, soit par la sacond ptait, saton la caa. Tous las autras axamplairas originaux sont fUmte an commandant par la pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Tha laat racordad frama on aach microflcha shall contain tha symbol ^^- (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol ▼ (moaning "END"), whichavar appllas. Un daa symbolaa suhrants apparaftra sur la darnMra imaga da chaqua microflcha, salon la cas: la symbola — ► signifia "A 8UIVRE". la symbols y signifia "FIN". Maps, platas, charts, ate, may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratios. Thosa too larga to ba antiraly included in ona axposura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand comor, loft to right and top to bottom, as many framas as raquirad. This following diagrams lllustrata tha mathod: Las cartas, planchas, tablaaux, ate, pauvant Atra filmAa i daa taux da rMuction diffArants. Lorsqua la document ast trap grand pour itra raproduK an un aaul ciich*. 11 aat film* i partir da I'angia supAriaur gaucha, da gaucha i droita. ' at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagaa nAcassaira. Laa diagrammaa suivants ; llluatrant la m4thoda. rrats palure. 1 A 32X 1 2 3 S: i 1 2 9 4 5 • ^u f T T6B I ,(i I "(l /^^ z 6^. r •v*^ ■/' A-!- •^k/i,«^--w<^*«i»' 7 PUBLISHED si -•^s;? •i: V----* CORRESPONDENCE AND PAPERS y - CALLED FORTH BY A CANVAS)? AMONG A SECTION OF THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF TORONTO, HAVING IN VIEW *'*; THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE VENERABLE THE ARCHDEACON OF YORX, IN SAID DIOCESE, V.^ ■ •■3- ■' ,■ f^ AS THE INCUMBENT OP THE PROPOSED NEW BISHOPRIC OF KINGSTON, -p CANADA WEST. l9 IWAibUiAMi originaUy in the "Echo and Protestant Episcopal Rtcordtr^ ntwtpaptrt ^f^ ^^ ^*""' flopf, Cainndu West. 1,. PRINTED AT THE DAILY NEWS STEAM PRESS. 18H tf ai OuuK's uiiwer^ OKiKC . I The Lord Bishop of Toronto convened an Assembly or Synod of the. Church in the Diocese of Toronto, on the 12th October, 1853, to take into consideration important matters connected with the Church in Canada West. The Synod was composed of the Bishop, the Clergy of the Diocese, and one or two lay delegates from each church or mission. Among the subjects brought under the notice of the Synod, was the contemplated division of the extensive Diocese of Toronto. " An attempt was made to get a declaration from that Synod, recommending the filling up of the proposed new Sees from among the clergy resident in them ; the resolution being sub- mitted to a preparatory committee, and brought forward by them, was almost unanimously expunged." Thus the matter was left by the Synod entirely in the hands of the authorities of the Parent Church in England, for (in the words of the Rev. Mr Townley) *' So long as the colonies have not the right of electing their Bishops formally conceded to them, to attempt to do so is both premature and undignified; and until we ourselves have made provision for securing suitable incomes for our Bishops, it is unseemly, to say the least, to strive to take the appointment out of the hands of those whose benevo- lent zeal we shall probably have to be indebted to for that boon also, in addition to our past innumerable obligations." Since the meeting and decision of the Synod, it has trans- pired that a canvass is being made among a section of the clergy of the diocese, with the view of memorializing the authorities of the Church in England, recommending the Venerable A. N. Bethune, D.D., Archdeacon of York, in the diocese of Toronto, as a fit nnd suitable candidate for consecration to the proposed See of Kingston. The following correspondence and papers, called forth by such canvass, are submitted to the prayerful consideration of those who feel interested in a matter of so much moment to the 2«'.578'1 welfare of the Church of England and Ireland — the appoint- ment of a Bishop to the proposed Diocese of Kingston. ,» "V \. J Extract from the Proceedings of Synod relative to the Report oj' the "Preparatory Committee on the Division of the iXocesef •^ aspublished. ."• - < . , -yv '* The 1st clause recommended the formation of two addi- tional sees ; one east, and the other west, of the then remaining Diocese of Toronto. The second clause (which was ultimately expunged) proposed that the selection for the increased Epis- copate should be made from the clergy of the diocese. The 3d clause provided for the establishment of an Episcopal Fund. The 4th clause embodied a request to the Lord fiishop of, Toronto to renew his exertions for the immediate division of the Diocese," » Letter of Rev. S. B. Ardagh^ A.M., Rector of the Tovon of Barrie, C,W, To THE Editor op the Echo. : ,,v i . : Nov. 24, 1853. Rev. Sib, — A " Circular " having been forwarded to me, dated Grafton Parsonage, Nov. 2nd, and signed J. Wilson, *^on behalf of the venerable the Archdeacon of York, as the man of all others, best qualified to fill the proposed See (Kingston.) If long and grateful services, combined with untirmg devotion to the inte- rests of the Church, and an intimate knowledge of her peculiar wants, can give a man a title to promotion, then are the Arch- deacon's claims paramount and irresistible." Mr. Wilson goes on to say, *' under these circumstances, it is proposed to form a Committee for the purpose of obtaining the votes of such of the Clergy as are favourable to the Archdeacon's nomination. A lliemorial to be submitted to this Committee to be signed by all those favourable to such a movement, and forwarded to Her Majesty 's Government in England ." . , v , j^ . ^ ^m^ • Now, sir, I might ask whether Mr. Wilson occupies that position in the Diocese which would warrant him in taking snch a prominent part as to the filling up the proposedBishopric, and thus giving his opinion of Dr. Bethune. However, al- though but an humble Minister in the Diocese, I feel bound to express my opinion, and to demur to that of Mr. Wilson as to the Archdeacon's qualifications for that very responsible office. I do so on public grounds, ^the Archdeacon having been brought forward publicly as a candidate, I am to suppose with his own consent,) and with profession of the utmost personal respect to the Archdeacon. Amongst the many qualifications that should distinguish a Bishop, especially at a time when our unhappy divisions are so rife, I shall. mention but two which in my humble judgment should be prominent. 1st, an absence of extreme doctrinal views ; and 2nd, a character which has been marked, after a lengthened period, by great prudence. Now I conceive that the Archdeacon is deficient in both these points. For a proof of the first, I refer you to a file of the Church paper, while under the Editorship of Dr. Bethune, especially his opinions on the principles of Drs. Newman, Pusey, (I put New- man first, as the honester man) et hoc genus omne. For the proof of the second, I refer to his conduct as Principal of the late Theological Institution at Cobourg, when by his imprudent zeal in forcing his views upon the students, he drove three of them away, who, being promising young men, were well nigh lost to the ministry of our Church. Now we may ask " If these things be done in the ;ren tree, what shall be done in the dry ? " If these things were done in a comparatively inferior position, what may we expect from him when placed in the almost irresponsible position of Bishop 1 I beg to assure Mi' Wilson that this opinion is held by a much greater and more influential number than he supposes. If Mr Wilson and his friends persist in canvassing for names to a memorial, let them be prepared for a counter document being forwarded to the same quarter. As I feel that no man ought to shrink when he considers that the Church is in danger — and the battle of principle is too noble to be fought from behind stone walls or paper screens — I think it right to subscribe myself openly and honestly. , S. B. Ardagh, R*et6rof Barriey in the Diocete of Toraitio. ^ Letter of Rev ^ R. V, Rogers^ Incumbent of St. James^ Church, in the City of Kingston, C, W, To THE Editor of the Echo. ■ y: ■■ ■i\ * ^^ " St. James', Kin-gstoNj December 1, 1853. Dear Sib : Agreeing as 1 do with my friend and brother, the Rector of Barrie, on the subject of the elevation of Dr Bethune to the Bishop's chair, let me advise that, without any loss of time, a respectful yet firm memorial be forwarded to the Archbishop of Canterbury, praying that no such affliction be suffered to fall on our struggling church in this Province as the appointment of one so distasteful to those that are without, and possessing so Httle of the confidence of those' within our communion. '*'' '^ ' i;^ .^ /> As a long resident in the Archdeaconry, and consequently acquainted with the public sentiment respecting our Church, I am persuaded that the appointment, not only of Dr. Bethune, but of any man of his extreme views would greatly paralyze, if not destroy, our Church. Protestantism is too much aroused to tolerate any who sympathize with semi-Popery. Permit me to suggest a still further step, that they whose views agree, in the main, with the Echo, both Laity and Clergy, should at once send home an expression of their opi- nion. Hitherto we have kept silence, and our silence has been construed into indifference. There is a point beyond which humility becomes degradation and caution cowardice. I think we have arrived at that point. Towards Dr. B. as a man I desire to entertain the kindest feelings ; but Dr. B. in his public character, I regret to say, has not my sympathy, and can have none of my support. With earnest prayer, that the great Head over all things to His Church, may graciously look on us, and send us a man after His own heart — and suggesting ihat prayer without cea- sing be made to God for this. Believe me, Yours and the Church's servant, . For Christ's sake, R. V. Rogers. P.S. I have not received any circular from ]Vfr. Wilson. Letter of the Ven, A, JV*. Bethune, D.D., Archdeacon of York, ERS. To THE Editor of the Echo. Sir,— I have incidentally seen the Echo of the 6th instant. The occupation of the future See of Kingston is to me, per- sonally, a matter probably of more indifference than it is to the Rev. R. V. Rogers, or to the others who, with an indelicacy and impropriety I believe without a parallel, are publicly can- vassing the merits of an individual in reference to that high office. I suppose that, with this vicious precedent, we shall, in the future Diocese of Kingston, have a public canvassing of the qualifications of Clergymen who may be named as candidates for vacant Rectories. The one would be just as fair, and wise, and decent as the other. But what I am concerned to notice in the communication of Mr. Rogers is his assertion that I am of the number of those who *' sympathize with semi-Popery." I defy him, or you, or any man, to prove this ; or that I have taught or preached any doctrine not in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England ; or that, as a conscientious member of that Church, I entertain or advocate " extreme views of doctrine." That Mr. Rogers should withhold his confidence or support from me on any occasion, will not generally be regarded of as much importance as he himself appears to attach to the fact. But I desire that he should be guided by simple charity, and utter nothing but credible statements. In this case, the appa- rent earnestness of petition which closes his communication would be regarded as something better than a solemn mockery. The reiteration of such attacks as the Echo now contains, will enable its supporters to congratulate themselves, — if such be a subject for congratulation, — upon reviving the spirit of religious party which was fast dying away in this Diocese. While the resuscitation of this unhappy spirit will not by any means impede the advance of Popery, it will accelerate that, which is m fact, the ulterior tendency of the crusade against the Clergy Reserves, so faintly condemned in the Echo, — the spread of rationalism and infidelity. I am, Sir, your obd't servant, A. N. Bethune, Archdtaeon qf York. ■> €obourg, Dec. 13, 1853. i'U • > »( 9 ;■.■.' V ■ ' Reply of Rev, R, V.Rogers, ' ' To THE Editor of the Echo. * '^ St. James', Kingston, Dpcember 22, 1853. Dear Sir, — However indifferent " tlie occupation of the future See of Kingston" may be to the Venerable the Arch- deacon of York, it is otherwise to me. Ought it to be a matter of indifference to any, whether of our church or not, conside- ring what consequences, for time and eternity, are involved in the character of the occupant 1 I am really at a loss to discover the ^* indelicacy and impro- priety of publicly canvassing the merits of an individual in refe- rence to that high office,''^ Has not that individual been intro- V duced to our notice, and his peculiar claims pressed on our consideration by a circular, sent, I should suppose, not alto- gether without the knowledge of Dr. Bethune *? It seems to me that " the indelicacy and impropriety of publicly canvassing, &c." has a parallel, at least in the indeli- cacy and impropriety of the gentleman whose name is sub- scribed to the circular. In the latter case the decision of the Synod seems to have been contradicted, — that the incum- bent of the Bishopric of Kingston should not be selected from among the Canadian clergy. If thus, as Dr. Bethune thinks, " the precedent be vicious,^' the fault is with the friends of the Archdeacon. The opposite has only followed, when they had led the way. Indeed we were taken by surprise, and the secret manner in which the wishes of the party were to have been consummated savors little of that honesty which should ever characterize the doings of Christians^ If then, in my former letter, I expressed myself strongly, it was because I felt strongly — not from any desire to give offence. I quite agree with Mr. Archdeacon Bethune, that that which concerns him is my charge of his being of those who sympa- thized with semi-Popery ; and it equally concerns me. Little as Dr. Bethune values my confidence — doubtless, because my influence is little — yet he knows that I am responsible to God, and the congregation over which I am placed, for that little : and surely, Dr. B. would not wish me to act contrary to my conviction, even though in so doing, I have to place myself in antagonism to his friends : — God being my helper, no consi- derations of personal consequences shail induce me to fail in m rny duty as a " watcliman " in the Church of God. Let me tell Dr. Bethune, with all respecf. to his official station, yet with all plainness, that I hope my apparent earnestness is " some- thing better than a solemn mockery ; " though, by his langunge, it would seem as if he half questioned it. Well, God knoweth our hearts ; and to Him I will refer the matter. In what I may say, I desire to be " guided by charity," and to utter nothing but ** credible statements." As to the amount of credit to be given to my evidence that Dr. Bethune sympathises witii Tractarianism, that which I call semi-Popery, I shall cite as witness, the Rev. A. N. Bethune, Editor of the Church ; and as I believe those views have never been repudiated, I may consider them as the opinions of the Archdeacon of York. Let me endeavor to show — 1st. That Mr. Bethune's extracts, as Editor of the Church, were made chiefly from Books, Pamphlets and Sermons of that School. 2nd. That Mr. Bethune's editorials, when referring to these topics, approved of these views, considering them, exclusively, as the views of the Church of England and Ireland ; and that he condemned all others as " wicked and schismatical." In relation to the first point, for proof I must refer to the Church, whilst the second time under his editorship. As to the second, I can only refer your readers to a few out of the many proofs before me. It is well known t'lat the London Record has been ever the special object of attack with those who have introduced " the novelties " which have so sadly " disturbed the peace of our Church." It may not be so well known that the Churchman''s JVewspaper is a decided advocate of these. On an article in the jRecord, condemnatory of the* Altar, Credence-table, Piscina, Sedilia, and Pulpit, all of stone, set up in a new church at Jed- burg in Scotland, the Churchman^s JVewspaper writes most se- verely of its cotemporary. Having introduced this article, after speaking in the most laudatory terms of the Churchman^s JVewspaper, the Editor of the Church, Oct., 1844, concludes — *' That the Churchman^s JVewspaper may, from its extensive, and we will hope, general diffusion amongst the sound-hearted members of our communion, prove an effectual antidote to what we must call the wicked principles of the Record, is our most sincere wish." I would remark — here are two exponents of views, doctrinal and ecclesiastical, directly opposed to each B 10 other ; and here is Mr. Bethune's " most sincere wish '* for the " general diffusion " of the Churchmari^s JVewspaper^ as an "effectual antidote to the wicked principles of (he Record ;" and yet Dr. Betluine defies ine or you, or any man, to prove that " I entertain or advocate extreme views of doctrine." All have heard of the Oxford Tracts. All are aware of their effects on the Church of England. All are aware of the present position of many of their anthers. All who have car- ried out these positions to their legitimate conclusions are safely within the hosom of that j>postacy, whose principles and practices they were even then adopting and advocating whilst professed members and ministers of our Protestant Church. It is furtlier well known that the opinions respecting these Tracts mark the school of Theology to which the individual holding them belongs. Dr. Bethune, as editor, alhut ever speaks ten- derly of them ; often in praise ; and, when compelled to con- demn, condemns so gently, and in such soothing terms, as albut amounts to justification. June 15, 1839, there appears on the first page^of the Church an article on these Tracts, of a highly laudatory character as a whole, but unaccompanied by a single word of qualification or caution from the editor. In an editorial of Octoher 19, 1839, too long for insertion here, Dr. Bethune, in reply to a correspondent, speaks in the moit favorable terms uf the Oxford Tracts. Amongst other things, he says : " From whatsopver cause, whether from real concern for the truth which was thought to be in jeopardy, or from the impulse of party jealousy, r very unlair constfuction has frequently been placed upon the sentiments and tenden'cy of the Oxford Tracts." With reference to the opposition made to their teaching, he has these words: "This vehemence of polemical assault— this apparent desire to sweep away wiih the besom of wrath, and without the condescension of an impurtial trijil, t'lose emanntions from some of the most disitin- guished divines of a Protestant and learned University — was calculated to awaken the antecedent impression that there was more of zeal than judgment, more of warmih than justice, in the denunciations which were promulgated against them." Of the opposers of the Tracts, he says : " We know that in many — perhaps a majority of instances — this condemnation of the imputed errors of the Oxford Tracts emanated frum individuals who were the merest tyroR in theological learning { ii as who had scarcely read a line in Ecclesiastical History or a chapter upon Church Antiquities, beyond what is presented, meagre and second-hand, in the elementary books furnished to the youngest student8 io Divinity ! •*«* ••• We have not merely received' with distrust the floating accusations against the heretical tendency of the Tracts for the Times, but we have been led to believe that, if fairly weighed and honestly examined, they would be found to contain more (ruth than error, more that the consistent member of our National and Apostolical Church should be ihanliful for than condemn. "One advantage — n blessing we shnll not hesitate to call it — the writers of the Tracts for the Times have we believe been mainly instrumental in achieving, — and that is, a better understanding of the real claims of the Church, and a clearer perception amongst its hitherto too careless and ill-informed members, of the real and Scriptural nature of that Apostolical commission, upon the maintenance of which in its integ- rity, the unity, and we must believe the prosperity, of the Church so mainly and essentially depends. ' * To the Homish Church, the writers of the Tracts for the Times have, with the candor of truth, conceded the merit of retaining that principle of unity, to which Protes- tant Christians are lamentably indifferent, or which they are sinfully surrendering. To ' look upon the Church as one whole, one ordi- nance of God, as a house of God's building, as the witness of the truth to the whole world, and the keeper of the Sacraments,' — this is the vantage-ground which the Papistical Church, in its vviliness, has been careful not to surrender, but which the members of the true Catholic Church have in recklessly abandoning cast away the cement of their strength. * * To those who are desirous of learning in sincerity the merits of this controversv, we cannot offer a better recommendation than to procure and peruse the tracts for themselves. They may possibly be startled by some strange opinions; but the alarm in most instances, we believe, will prove to be one which a candid construc- tion of their meaning, and the general bearing of their writings, will dispel : certain we are, at least, that they cannot fail to derive instruc- tion and benefit from them as a whole." « Permit me to ask the Venerable the Archdeacon, whether he has ever availed himself of the many opportunities which his office has given him, of retracting any of those eulogies which he passed on these Tracts 1 Aug. 24, 1839, in acknowledging the receipt of the two first parts of the " Tracts for the Times," Dr. B. writes : " We hold ourselves indebted to the enterprizing individual, be he who he may, who has placed these valuable and peculiar theological nroductions so closelv within our reach. 12 " In giving so high a character, in genera!, to those Oxford puhlicn- tions, we beg most disiinctly to be understood as not pledging ourselves to an unqualified approval of all (hat has emanated from those profound Bchi)lars and eminentlj' pious men who have created such on excite- ment in the religious and even in the political world. The Oxford Tracts have an apparent tendency to some fexo doctrines which we deem erroneous, and which we believe are so held by the soundest of our Protestant divines ; they are also occasionally disfigured by some expressions and sentiments which, to say the least, we consider of questionable lawfulness, and most decidedly inexpedient. Making, however, these deductions, we regard the champions of the Oxford Theology as men who have restored many a half-buried and forgotten truth to a prominency and importance to which they have too long been strangers. In aiming at the overthrow of modern Rntionalisni and Christian Laxity, they may have deviated a little too far from the midtjle and judicious course ; but the imperfections into which we are of opinion they have fallen, are but the incrustations which enclose and surround the excavated ore, and which with a little attrition will spee- dily disappear — the labor of purification enhancing the value and the brilliancy of the metal called from darkness and inactivity to the lively use of man. When truth has been obscured, and even hidden, for a long time, it bursts upon us with a blaze almost dazzling ; and it is not till we have become in some degree familiar with it that we can per- ceive its beauty, or admire the fulness of its elfulgency. This is em- phatically the case with many of the doctrines insisted on by the Oxford writers, and especially with that of the Apostolical Succession," The clergy of that extreme school are they who Dr. Bethune delighted to honor, Rev. W. Gresley, Keble, Bishop Doane, etc. March 28, 1840, an editorial eulogy is pronounced on ^'Per- ceval's Apology for the Apostolical Succession," in which it is decided, ex cathedra^ that all they who do not hold the doctrine are ''wayward," "thoughtless," and "ignorant." Strong lan- guage this from one who "does not entertain extreme views of doctrine !" The Rev. W. Blunt had been charged before the Bishop of Exeter by his parishioners at Helston, and had been not only acquitted but approved of by his Bishop ; though he introduced, without any authority, novelties^ which may have been at one time usages^ some of them when the Church was just emerging from the night of Popery, but which for centuries had become obsolete, and which have been restored by these Tractarians as emblems of that teaching which they are once again introdu- cing into oiir Protestant Church. We find the editor of the 13^ Church on Janua* 10, 1845, thus remarking on the Bishop's document: • ■;- -■■ ^iv^ • , m- ■{■'^"n .v^i:,:^\v.'Xt^':y^ " The extracts we have given will be peruse; them away, who, being promising young men, were w..?'n'i.% ost to the ministry of our Church." May I be permitted, sir, to ask Mr. Ardagh, from what source bi^ obtained his information in regard to this affair? Was it fnh the London Record^ or from one of the three pro- mising yc5^s ' ^i^ Does Mr. Ardagh require to be told at this tmie oi .y tlmt the story got up for the Record was a wicked fabric vl. ml and thjc it was disproved in the most em- ii^[ r clergy- See, Mr. ifications ne when but two, 1st, an er which rudence. 3th these ^rchdea- want of hat Mr. loes not le of the the edi- ! opinion I suspect (as It IS ) , for his it is dif- nsinuate errors of ; leaning teaching, ;he accu- 's teach- acterized srence to is nume- stify. '^want of ncipal of lent, zeal ot them >m what is affair ? iree pro- 3 told at d was a no8t em- 23 ' phatic manner by the studen s at the institution, with scarcely an exception — coming forward in an address to their respected Principal, to express their unlimited confidence in the sound- ness and moderation of his pul>Iic prelections'? Does Mr. Ar- dagh know also, that an agod and respected brother clergj'man — the Rev. Samuel Armour- ^ince gone to his rest, and whose views of doctrine were more in unison with llioso held by Mr. Ardagh than with the Archdeacon's, wrote to the Record at that time, disproving in the most distinct and solemn manner the charge brought against the Principal and the institution 1 Wtj.nt, 'Mr. Ardagh means by the term " promismg," which he a>>2Mic> to the three young men in question, I do not pre- {and to decide. But this I do know, that one of the three — *h bader and author of the whole difficulty referred to — was a young man of most fanatical assumption, filled with spi- ritual pride and puritanical pretensions ; much more of a Dis- senter than a Churchman, and the subject, as he believed, of one of those sudden and so-called " conversions ": he was continually, and in the most pertinacious manner, o'truding his views upon his fellow-students, and endeavoring to shake their confidence in their duly authorized Instructor. And more than this, I have known the same " promising " young man to circulate, in the Parish, tracts of tne most objection- able tendency, calculated to undermine the established doc- trine of the Church. Sour and morose in his disposition, and with the most slender attainments, and utter ignorance of the doctrines of the Church, he acted in the most captious and querulous manner ; and unless his views and opinions have greatly changed since that time, he ought not, in my humble judgment, even yet to have been ordained to " the ministry of our Church." And how did the Archdeacon act under these trying circum- stances 7 In the kindest and most forbearing manner possible. He endeavored mildly and gently to convince those that were in error ; seldom or never speaking in a tone of authority, but preferring to use the language of parental counsel to those placed under his pastoral charge. And I speak most disinte- restedly and impartially, when I declare that I have often been astonislied at the mildness, and gentleness, and moderation, and christian forbearance, exhibited upon all occasions, and often imder great provocation, by the excellent Professor towards the students under his charge. And I hesitate not to declare my settled conviction, that the two qualifications 11 ^ 24 which Mr. Ardagh says, in his judgment, should distinguish s Bishop, are to be found in a very eminent degree in the Vene- rable the Archdeacon of York, viz. — The total absence of all ex- treme doctrinal views, and great prudence in the discharge of all his public duties. Whence then this wanton attack upon a man whose private and public character is above reproach, and whose faithful and untiring labors for the good of the Church, are known and appreciated throughout this extensive Diocese ? Mr. Ardagh may rest assured that the friends of the Archdeacon will not suffer their judgment to be warped by the sympathies or par- tialities of private friendship, and still less by the rancor of party prejudice : and they believe most conscientiously, that in supporting the Archdeacon's nomination to the contemplated See of Kingston, they are humbly, subserving the best inte- rests of our Church in that section of the Province. If our future Bishops are to be chosen from among our own body of Clergy, as we believe they ought and hope they may be, then we contend without fear of contradiction that the Archdea- con's claims are immeasurably superior to those of any of his brethren in the Diocese. If Mr. Ardagh or his friends should think otherwise, of course he has a perfect right to entertain a different opinion, and record his vote accordingly ; but he has no right to slander his brother, or attempt to fasten odium upon his superiors through the medium of a public newspaper. And now, Mr Editor, a word for you. Why do you persist in admitting continually into your paper articles avowedly hostile and clearly detrimental to the best interests of the Church? When you published Mr Ardagh's communication relative to the Archdeacon, you knew — as few men could know better — that the latter gentleman held no such views as are there imputed to him. And had not your judgment been warped, and your eyes blinded, by the piejudicc of party, you would have boldly proclaimed the trutii. What signifies our professed respect for a brother, if we are yet knowingly instru- mental in traducing his character, or misrepresenting his opin- ions 1 Why do you sutler your paper to slander your Bishop, thus " speaking evil of d'-^nilics"] Your naturally mild and amiable disposition would have caused you to shrink from taking part in fomenting strife and envy, and heartburning, amongst brethren, had you not unhappily embraced those party views of doctrinal teachinir, which are calculated to 25 promote and foster the " unhappy divisions " of which your correspondent takes notice. . ^ >, Yours, very sincerely, J. Wilson. St. George's Parsonage, ) Grafton, Nov. 30, 1853. J Reply of Rev. Mr. Ardagh. • [from the echo.] We have received a letter from the Rev. S. B. Ardagh, which, although written in self-defence, we had purposed to refrain from publishing, on the grounds stated in the leading article of our last number. But Mr. Wilson having sent his letter to the Hamilton Gazette, and part of it having been re- published in the Church, with the remark, " We are person- ally cognizant of the strict truth of every statement made by Mr. Wilson," we cannot refuse to let Mr. Ardagh be heard again. Omitting his remarks in reply to Dr. Bethune's charges of " indelicacy, impropriety, and want of decency," and several other portions of his letter, (containing matter more fully adverted to by Mr. Rogers,) for the sake of con- fining' the subject within the narrowest compass, we give the remainder ; and we sincerely hope that, as far as the Press i» concerned, the matter may he suffered to rest here, for the present. Of Dr. Bethune Mr. Ardagh igoes on to say : — " I believe that the character of Dr. Bethune in private li£e is all that his most ardent friends claim for him. In the slight intercourse I have had with Dr. Bethune, he has treated mo with courtesy ; and I trust that I showed him the respect due to him. But it is with his publir character, and as a candi- date for a Bishopric, that I assert my right, as a Presbyter of the Diocese, to give my opinion. ** Mr. Wilson states that my charge against Di. Bethune * of holding extreme doctrinal views, is of so vague and indefinite a nature that it is difficult to deal properly wilh it.' Strange, that after referring for proof not only to the general tendency of the Church paper under the editorship of Dr» B., but also 26 to specified articles, he yet speaks of vagueness and indefinite- ness. Let Mr. Wilson take down the vohuncs of the Church and just look at the index, and he will be relieved from his perplexity in a very few minutes. But he * suspects ' that I did not read the Church paper myself. I not only read it, but brought some of these articles before a clerical meeting, and concluded by moving a resolution, which was put by the Chairman and carried, to the effect that ^ the Church paper had a Romanizing tendency, and did not express the princi- ples of a Protestant Churchman.' Moreover, this resolution was duly forwarded to Dr. Bcthune, but of course was not ad- mitted into the columns of the Church, " Mr. Wilson asks me from what source \ got my information as to the three students who were forced out of the Cobourg Institution. I reply, from the best posssible source, and not from the London Record^ the general principles of which paper I approve. But now, in return, I accuse Mr. Wilson of making a charge not only vague and indefinite, but worsCy in alleging that ' the story got up for the Record was a wicked fabrication.' Was the statement in the Record a fabrication, viz., that three students had left the Institution 7 — was it a fabrication, that their so leaving it, was in consequence of being told by Dr. B. if they continued to hold certain views (called Evangelical) they need not expect ordination, and recommended them to seek some other profession ; but be- cause the informant of the Record had stated some circum- stances as to the sufferings of those young men which were not coirect, then the whole was ' a wicked fabrication.' "I know that an address was got up from the students to Dr. B. on that occasion, but I am aware of one who distinctly re- fused to sign it, and I heard from the lips of another that he Aid not sign it until it was sent back to him the third time, and then with sometiiing like a threat. Of what value is a docu- ment got up under such circumstances 1 "Now with respect to Mr. Wilson's insinuation as to the three ejected young men convoyed in the question : What I mean by the term ' promising ' as applied to them, I shall answer it by facts. One is now a respected Professor in one of our Episcopal Colleges ; another is an esteemed Clergyman in this Diocese, and the third is Clerical Secretary to one of our Church Missionary Societies at home. " I have now, sir, to remark on the evil effects produced by Dr. B.'«» conduct in this affair, and the tendencies of his viewg 0' idefinite- i Church from his ' that I ,d it, but ing, and t by the ch paper e pi'inci- esolulion not ad- brtnation Cobourg and not f which (Vilson of worsCy in I wicked jricalion, was it a uence of in views ion, and but be- circum- ich were Its to Dr. nctly re- that he ime, and I a docu- the three I mean I answer le of our yman in le of our duced by his views 27 . - from his editorial chair ; eilecJs which have been prejudicial to our respected Bishop, our Dioct'so, and the Church at large. I was deputed in the latter part, of 1849 by the Venerable So- ciety for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts to advocate the interests of the Society through a large circuit. In many places I mot with much opposition and coldness, grounded upon charges of tyranny and iiliberality against my Bishop — a refusal to support a Society that alimented a Di- ocese and a Collegiate Institution so presided over. Amongst other proofs I was referred to this unfortunate affair at Cobourg, then comparatively recent. I both publicly and privately defended my Bishop from false assertions and accusations, and in my own person have often declared, with perfect truthful- ness, that I had been ever dealt with by him with the greatest courtesy and kindness. My explanations were deemed so satisfactory that some associations which had been discontin- ued were revived under promising circumstances, and pulpits which were refused to me at first were afterwards opened to me for the advocacy of the Society in general, and my own diocese in particular. I also received a handsome contribution to my own parish. '* Mr, Wilson charges me with ' making a wanton attack — slandering a brother, and casting odium upon my superiors.' I plead not guilty to these serious imputations. What I have now written is in self-defence, and the Archdeacon may thank his friend for forcing me to bring forward facts to corroborate my opinion as to his fitness for the Episcopal office. " As to the charges brought against the Echo, I leave to you, sir, the easy tusk of Rebutting them. I trust that the Echo will ever be conducted in a Christian spirit, but at the same time with a boldness necessary for the dangers that beset our beloved Church. I love peace, but not peace founded on a compromise of principle. The gangrene of semi-Popery has, alas, got into our Church (or, I shoukl say, among the Clergy) and led many over the precipice. Mild remedies are of no use, they have been depended on too long ; the patient now requires the actual cautery. I rejoice that the people of England are at last roused, and the Standard, St. James'' Chro- nicle and other able journals, have, at the eleventh hour, found it necessary to speak the mind of the English people. The Church of England and Ireland shall not be unprotestantized. No one rejoices more than I do that the revived Church paper in conducted on more moderate views ; but it is too late, after is- 28 years of remonstrance, to ask us now to give up the Echo, to the establishment of which is mainly to be attributed that change. Apologising for occupying so much of your limited - space, but is there not a cause ) " I am, Dear Sir, " Yours faithfully, " S. B. Ardagh, " Rector of Barrity Circular of Rev, Wm, McMurray, D.D,, and Answer of Rev. R. Flood, A.M. CIRCULAR. DdndAs, Dec. 26, 1853. Rev. and Dear Sir : As many of the Clergy of the Diocese seem to be of the opinion that the proposed See of Kingston should be filled by one of their own number, I take the liberty of bespeaking your vote and influence in behalf of the Arch- deacon of York, should the appointment be given to us, as a fit and proper candidate for its Episcopate. Will you have the kindness to signify to me your wishes on the subject as early as may be convenient, and oblige. Reverend and dear sir. Yours sincerely, William McMurray. The Rev. R. Flood, A.M. Delaware. REPLY. Delaware, C. W., January 7, 1854. Rev. and Dear Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Circular of the 26th ult., in which you solicit my vote and influence in behalf of the Archdeacon of York, as a fit and proper candidate to fill the proposed See of Kingston, should the home authorities permit the clergy of this diocese to elect one of their own number to that oflice. I cannot return you a mere reply in the negative, without expressing at the same time my entire disapprobation of the line of action adopted by some of the clergy in reference to 29 '. this grave snbject ; who have, without the slightest authority, commenced canvassing the clergy for their votes — the senior clergy being the last consulted and solicited on the occasion, i. Is not this mode of proceeding in direct opposition to that express decision of the Synod, and, consequently, to the mind and judgment oj our venerable Diocesan, who presided on the occasion ? If the appointment rested with the clergy, then I consider that the only legitimate channel of communicating with them on so serious a matter should be through their Dio- cesan. To such an authority I would freely and fully state my reasons for disapproving of the object of your choice in the Archdeacon as a fit and proper candidate for the intended See of Kingston. I believe the Archdeacon's private character to be unim- peachable, and therefore have nothing to say on that head but what is commendable. My grand objection to his elevation to the Episcopate dates as far back as the time when he filled the editorial chair of the Church, in which journal appeared from time to time many articles of a Rpmanizing tendency, especially the editorial that followed Dr. Pusey's Sermon before the University of Oxford, which appeared more laudatory than condemnatory of a dis- course for which the preacher was reproved and silenced by his University for some time. I remain, reverend and dear sir. Yours truly, RiCHARr Flood. Rev. Dr. McMurray, Dundas. Circular of Rev. W. McMurray, D.D., and Reply of Rev, Chas* C. Brough, A.B., Rector of the Township of London, C.W, CIRCULAR. DuNDAS, December 26th, 1853. - Rev. and Dear Sir : As many of the clergy of the diocese seem to be of the opinion that the proposed See of Kingston should be filled by one of their own number, I take the liberty of bespeaking your vote and influence in behalf of the Arch- deacon of York, should the appointment be given to us, as a '■ & ■ ' 30 fit and proper candidate for its Episcopate. Will you have the kindness to signify to me your wishes on the subject as early as may be convenient, and oblige Rev. and Dear Sir, yours sincerely, William McMurray. Rev. C. C. Brough, A.B. Rector of St. John^s Church, London. P.S. In the Rev. Mr. Patton's Deanery they are all for the Archdeacon, with one or two exceptions ; the result with Mr Grier is also favorable, and with Dr. Strong they will be nearly unanimous. In the Gore District we will have a large majority. W. McM. REPLY. St, John's Rectory, London Township, December 31st, 1853. My Dear McMurray : Your letter of the 26th instant, headed " Circular," and written officially, duly reached me, but I was ill when it arrived, and consequently have been unable to answer it as soon as I should Have desired. I am truly sorry to be obliged to reply to it, or to any communication from a friend, and more particularly a clerical brother, as I am constrained to do in this instance. You will undei stand, and I doubt not more fully than I can, 'the candor that becomes us in all our proceedings, as clergy- men ; and in a very particular manner, (and more especially in this our day,) as regards the relation in which we stand towarda our lay brethren. The subject upon which you write materially affects that position ; and the course adopted by some in reference to the matter under agitation, I cannot but regard as the opposite of what is due to the laity, and appears to me to be neither legitimate nor ingenuous. I desire in the present state of the question to view the subject of your letter altogether apart from the Archdeacon of York's priority of pretension or otherwise to the proposed See of Kingston. I wish to entertain towards him personally, and towards the high office which he occupies in the Church, all due respect ; but I cannot, notwithstanding these strong impressions, com- promise the duty which rests upon mc to dissent from all participation in proceedings which appear to me to bear so strikingly the aspect of intrigue. It is unnecessary for me to enlarge upon the circumstances which in my mind affix to the acts of certain . of the clertrv -J. ; 31 that character. Some of our brethren in the course pursued have been treated with distrust ; others, I am almost tempted to say, have been approached insidiously ; the laity have been overlooked altogether, and the action of the late Synod has been directly contravened. The Church paper expressed its counsel — that too has been set at nought ; a concerted plan, and thus conducted, has been in operation for many weeks, and correspondence marked "private and confidential," or to that effect, has been in circulation amongst a portion of the clergy ; and now, after this lapse of time, and your plans pre- arranged, a circular is addressed to me to " bespeak my vote and influence." Am I to regard this as done to save appear- ances ? This the act almost "bespeaks." Others in this section of the Province have been dealt with in the same manner. Who, my dear sir, has prompted you to such a course? From whom has this circular emanated, and whose official have you been ? I must be strangel)'^ ignorant of what is passing in the diocese, if you have acted under competent authority, nor can I conceive how you have become committed in transactions characterized by such want of frankness. I sincerely lament that so many ecclesiastics, as your letter represents, have been found to ignore the solemn action of the Church lawfully convened. I entertain, how- ever, the belief that many of my respected brethren have acted without due reflection. In relation to this whole matter, of such deep interest to us all, I venture to offer my fervent prayer, that whoever in the providence of God shall be elevated to the proposed See, may be a man of faith and of the Holy Ghost, a Sdlptural Bishop, an unequivocal Protestant, without tendency towards Tractarian leprosy. I feel it my duly to inform you that I intend to give publi- city to your circular and my answer, and further, I take this opportunity to assure you that I have not hitherto interfered in the matter of the See of Kingston, nor have I directly or indi- rectly been concerned in one single line that has been written or published on the subject. I remain, my dear sir. Yours, very sincerely and faithfully, Charles C. Brough. 32 :; I S'.s if if Reply of Rev. Benjamin Cronyn, A.M., Rector of the Town of London J C.W,^ to the Circular, London, C. W., Jan. 9, 1854. My Dear McMurray : The terms of friendly intimacy upon which you and I have ever been since our first acquaint- ance, require that I should give more than a passing reply to your circular of the 26th ult. I feel myself constrained to give expression to what I think concerning the means which have been adopted to obtain the appointment of the Archdeacon of York to the See of King- ston. It has come to my knowledge that circulars, marked " private," were sent to certain of the clergy in various parts of the Diocese nearly two months ago, asking them to collect secretly the names of such of the clergy in their neighborhoods as were in favor of the appointment of the Archdeacon. When _ the names were thus procured, an address to the Queen and Government at home, praying that he might be appointed, was to be prepared, and the names thus obtained appended to it. I and many others who were supposed not to be favorable to the Archdeacon's appointment to the Episcopal office, were not applied to ; the entire matter was studiously kept from our knowledge ; our very existence in the diocese was ignored by the originator of the movement, and by some who acted under him. When, however, contrary to their wishes, this secret canvass found its way into the newspapers, and could no longer be kept "private," then, after the lapse of nearly two monthi, we, amongst whom are some of the oldest clergymen in the diocese, are invited to join in a measure which it was evidently the intention at first to conceal from us ! Was this fair towards the clergy 1 And does it not appear as if it was the intention of those who originated the movement to transmit to the Queen and Government at home a document signed only by a party in the Church as one emanating from the entire body ? This proceeding was also kept secret from the laity, just after they had been assembled in Synod by ([the Bishop, and a pledge had thus been given them that they should be admitted to a participation in all the affairs of the Church. I presume, also, that this secret canvass was carried on without the knowledge of our Diocesan, although his name has been introduced, for I feel assured that he would never be a party to a course which savors so strongly of partizanship^ 33 nor sanction secret proceedings which must result in the dis- grace of all concerned. I feel assured, that it is only your great personal friei* jhip for the Archdeacon which has caused you to overlook the real character of the proceedings in which you have been induced to co-operate ; and that when you re-consider the matter, you will see that a Bishop ought not to be thus secretly introduced into the Church ; that a large number of the Clergy ought not to be treated with contempt — that an attempt to mislead the Queen and Government at home ought not to be sanc- tioned — that the existence of a Synod in the Diocese ought not to be thus practically denied, and the rights of the Laity trampled under foot. If a Bishop is to be elected, let there be no canvass, either secret or open, personal or otherwise, for this high and holy office ; let not the Episcopate be degraded by being placed on a par with the office of Common Council- man or Member of Parliament. Such proceedings I hold to be quite disreputable. But let the Provisional Committee be addressed upon the subject, in whose hands the question of the division of the Diocese has been left by the unanimous voice of the Synod, and let such measures be adopted by them to collect the votes of the Laity and Clergy as shall not compromise the character of the Church, and bring disgrace upon the Diocese. You will see, therefore, that were I only to consider the means which have been adopted to secure the appointment of the Archdeacon of York to the See of Kingston, I should be constrained to refuse my co-operation. But as you have asked my vote and influence for him as a " fit and proper candidate" for the Episcopate, I feel that, however unwilling I may be to enter upon a subject, which heretofore I have carefully avoided, you have now laid on me the necessity of stating candidly that I do not agree with ^ou in the estimate you have formed of the Archdeacon's fitness for that office, but that I should regard his appointment as a measure fraught with danger to the Church in this country. Unworthy motives might be ascribed to me were I to pass over this portion of your letter without bestowing upon it that attention to which the subject entitles it. In the present state of the Church it is of vital importance that a Bishop should be a man of whose attachment to the Protestant principles of the Reformation, no doubt could be entertained. When canvassing tke fitness of the Archdeacon- E • • . / iS P !■ ^ \K V '■ \M ^ i Wm ii 3 f "^ J; jfejaiitt '34 of York for the Episcopate, as we me invited to do by your Circular, we possess this advantage, that he has been for years before the world in a public character as the Editor of the Church, We can therefore speak of his opinions, as put forth in that journal, without exposing ourselves to the charge of personality or the accusation of slander. The views advocated m that paper, while under his management, though generally put forward with much caution, can easily be discovered through the obscurity with which an involved style has in- vested them J and they will be found on examination, to be widely different from the Protestant principles embodied in the Articles of our Church. I shall not now enter at large upon this subject, as the Rev. Mr. Rogers has done so at some length in his letter lately pub- lished in the Echo, I shall merely mention one instance, not noticed by him, in which the Editor of the Church propounded and labored to maintain principles, which I believe to be a', variance with the plain tcacliing of the United Church of England and Ireland. In the Editorial article of the 15th Jan., 1847, the Editor thus expressed himself — " But when the Church Universal has recorded its conclusions, and laid down its interpretation of Holy Scriptures so positively that there can be no further ob- scurity or doubt — in the canons of General Councils, and in the writings of large numbers of primitive Divines, a decision of this kind cannot be set aside, we conceive, without very grave offence. It is authority beyond question ; for if it were not authority, the neglect of it would be no sin." And again — " completely satisfies us, that the Spirit of God, to whose inspiration the most contradictory interpretations of Scripture are indifferently ascribed, cannot be the cause of such confu- sion, but refers us undoubtedly to some authoritative standard of God's own appointment, even the voice of the Catholic Church." Again — " and the natural inference from this fact is, that the declarations of God's willy and the interpretations of the Church universal, have been bound together by God him- self, the author of both, in close and necessary and inseparable alliance." From these passages, and from the entire article in which they occur, we are able to collect the writer's view on the all- important points, of the sulRcicncy of Holy Scripture for sal- vation, and the authority of the Church ; which is, that the canons of councils, the writings of large numbers of primitive 35 Divines, and the interpretations of the Cliurcli, proceed from the same inspiration as the Word of God, and that the man who neglects them is guilty of sin ! I cannot regard the writer of such passages as the above, however much I may ad- mire his zeal and industry, as a fit candidate for the office of Bishop in the United Church of England and Ireland, which everywhere teaches the sufTiciency of Holy Scripture for salva- tion ; which solemnly pronounces the decision, that Churches have " erred not only in their living and manner of ceremo- nies, but also in matters of faith " ; and that " general coun- cils may err, and sometimes have erred in things pertaining unto God ; wherefore things oi'dained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture " (xix. and xxi. Articles) . Could I be induced to embrace these views, I should at once renounce the communion of a Church which instructs all its members, lay and clerical, " to search diligently for the well of life in the New and Old Testaments, and not to run to the stinking puddles of men's tradition, de- vised by men's imagination for our justification and salvation " (1st Homily) . I could name other articles in which the Editor of the Church has shown a decided bias in favor of unprotestant doc- trine, such as his remarks upon the Sermon which caused the suspension of Dr. Pusey by the University of Oxford ; but I forbear, as the above doctrine concerning Holy Scripture and the authority of the Church has ever been, and still is, the prolific source of all the errors of the Church of Rome, and of all those evils which have of late troubled our Church. Knowing then that " a Bishop should be blameless, holding fast the faithful word, that he may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers," I cannot agree with you that the Archdeacon of York is " a fit' and proper candidate " for the Episcopal ofl[ice. I must, therefore, decline pledging my vote and influence in his favor. 1 remain, my dear McMurray, Faithfully yours, Benj. Cronyn. P.S. The above has been written for several days, as you will perceive by the dale, but having been absent from home, and otherwise very much engaged, 1 have not had time to for- ward it before. As I have learned that there are several per- sons canvassing the Clergy in this part of the Diocese, I think it advisable to publish this, that all may be aware of the mea- sures which have been adopted, and of the light in which they are viewed by some of their brethren. Extract from an Article in '^The Echo^^ of Jan. 12, 1854. That we are not merely doing the work of a party, in our opposition to the means which have been made use of in can- vassing with reference to the Kingston Bishopric, appears from the fact that even those who look upon the Echo as an afflic- tion and a misfortune to the Church, are not more favorable to the " Circular " proceeding than we are. Several, to our own knowledge, who agree with the Rev. Adam Townley in other matters, agree with him also most fully in the following paragraph taken from a letter to which the Church has given a " prominent position" : "Yea, I am quite willing to confess that in my opinion, Mr. Wilson committed a mistake in sending his circulars; for the threefold reason that the election of a chief overseer of the flock of Christ should not be made the subject of a canvass ; that so long as the colonies have not the right of electing their bishops formally conceded to them, to attempt to do so is both premature and undignified ^ and that until we have ourselves made provision for securing suitable incomes for our bishops, it is unseemly^ to say the least, to strive to take their appoint- ment out of the hands of those to whose benevolent zeal we shall probably have to be indebted for that boon also, in addition to our past innumerable obligations." Now, such disclaimer seems absolutely called for on the part of all who desire Synodical self-government, or else they must be content to appear inconsistent and insincere. When can we ever expect to find a better attended meeting, in proportion to our numbers, than that which so solemnly declared itself a Synod at Toronto 1 An attempt was made to get a declaration from that Synod recommending the filling up of the proposed new Sees from among the clergy resident in them. The reso- lution, being submitted to a preparatory committee and brought forward by tliem, was almost unanimously expunged ; and now, in the very teeth of this Synodical action, we have Rural Peans canvassing by circulars addressed to the clergy ; and 37 treating the laity with a neglect of their claim to be consulted, which, if not meant to be contemptuous (and this we do not suppose) , has certainly the same effect. The Synod, consist- ing of Bishop, Clergy, and Laity, has taken a certain course ; some of the Rural Deans by circulars induce a large number of the clergy to take an opposite course. If this be permitted and sanctioned, what layman will attend the next meeting that is summoned to play at Synod ? Memorial of the Laity, [Circular.] Kingston, December, 1853. Sir : We enclose for your consideration, and that of the laity of the congregation with which you are connected, the ac- companying copy of Memorials, now in course of preparation and signature by some of the Churches in Kingston and vicinity. When completed, it is intended to send them to be laid be- fore the Church authorities in England, at an early day. Should any of the laity of the Congregation with which you ar e associated desire to memorialize in like manner, the Me- morials should be written and signed according to the accom- panying instructions, and sent to the address of any of the un- dersigned without delay. Your obedient servants, Thomas Askew, Horatio Yates, Churcbwardens of St George's Church in the Gity of Kingston* Wm. Rudston, Neil McLeod, Churchwardens of St. James' Church in the City of Kingston. J. Marks, John Dunn, Churchwardens of Barricfield Church, in the immediate vicinity of Kingston. memorial. To Her Most Gracious Majesty, Victoria, by the Grace of God Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, &c. &c. The Memorial of the undersigned members of the Congre- gation of Church (in the Archdeaconry of Kingston) , in the Diocese of Toronto, and that part of the Province of i h ! £ i 38 Canada heretofoic Upper Canada — humbly and respectfully showeth : That your ineaiorialists, your Majesly's most loyal and duti- ful subjects, are strongly attached to the Church of their fore- fathers, the Reformed Church of England and Ireland, of which they are members. That while iheir affections and their sympathies extend to and embrace the Parent Church, being resident within the Archdeaconry of Kingston, they feel an especial interest in the welfare of that branch of the Church which has been planted in Canada. They, therefore, contemplate with sincere gratification the expressed intention of Your Most Gracious Majesty to establish a separate Diocese within the limits of the present Archdea- conry of Kingston, to be called the Diocese of Kingston, having its seat at the city of Kingston, being fully convinced that this important measure must, if judiciously carried out, greatly strengthen and advance the interests and prosperity of the Church in this portion of the rising Province of Canada. They hope that such division may take place at as early a period as possible ; and while they most gratefully acknowledge the lib- erality of the Parent Church, in already providing the nucleus of a fund to secure the payment of the Bishop's salary, they would, with the view of hastening such division, take this opportunity of expressing their willingness to contribute to such a fund to the extent of their ability. Your memorialists, however, cannot but express (heir con- viction, that much of the expected benefit Jo be derived from the erection of such new Diocese will depend, under God, on the character and qualifications of the Bishop who may be consecrated to the proposed See. Whilst they are painfully sensible of the differences of opin- ion which exist in our Church on points vitally affecting its welfare and usefulness, they are desirous that views consistent with the Articles and Standards of our Churcli should be held both by the clergy and laity without compromise of principle. That in the present infant and struggling stale of our Church in this Province, the promotion of peace and unanimity of action among its members is essential to its prosperity and development. That the appointment of a Bishop of extreme or parly views to preside over the proposed Diocese would inevitably engender party strife and disunion ; while, on the other hand, n»uch 4 i 39 migljt be done to promofe harmony and peace by the Christian and judicious conduct of a Godly evangelical Bishop, moderate in his ecclesiastical views. That the entire Clergy, including Missionaries, of our Church in Upper Canada does not exceed one hundred and fifty in number ; that at the present time, in the opinion of your me- morialists, it would be a matter of extreme difficulty, if not im- possibility, for the Church here, with any degree^of unanimity, to recoinmend from amongst so small a number of clergy one to fill the proposed See in whom general confidence could be placed, as having the many other qualifications for a Bishop, combined with a freedom from extreme or party views. That they exceedingly regret to learn that efforts are being made by a small section of the clergy in this Diocese, having in view the suggestion and recommendation of one of the clergy of said Diocese for consecration to the proposed Bishopric. That your memorialists would desire to remove any errone- ous impression which such efforts might possibly make upon the far distant authorities of the Church in England ; either that such proceedings have the sanction of the majority of the members of the Church in this Diocese, or that such appoint- ment would give general satisfaction. Your memorialists, therefore, would most earnestly and re- spectfully pray that the Incumbent of the Bishopric of King- ston may be selected from amongst the numerous clergy of the Parent Church in England or Ireland, with the hope that, free from local influences and extriMiie views, the peace, happiness, and prosperity of our beloved Church may, under the blessing of our Adorable Head, be promoted and secured. And your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray. City of Kingston, Canada, December, l853. Note. — Since the above correspondence has been put in press, the Rev. Dr. McMurray has published a letter, stating that he intended the word " private," marked in his Circular, with a view to keep the canvass from the knowledge of Archdeacon Bethune, solely, and that only a short time inter- vened between his posting his first and second packages of Circulars to the Clergy. 40 f 1 ' CONTENTS, :>■■" ..' ■'■ X . ■ ■ •• 1. Statement of tbe Decision of the Diocesiin Assembly, or S/noJ, m reference to tlie Bishopric of Kingston. 3 , 2. Letter of the Rer. S. B. Ardagb, A.M., Rector of Town of Barrie, O.W., 4 3. Letter of Rer. R. 7. Rogers, Incombent of St. James' Church, in the Git7 of Kingatoo, G. W G 4. Letter of the Venerable A. N. Bethune, D.D., Archdeacon of York. ... % 5. Reply of Rev. R. Y. Rogers < 8 (6. Letter of "Mentor" 16 7. Letter of "A Layman" IT 8. Letter of "Sciaticas" 19 9. Letter of Rer. Mr. Wilson 21 10. Reply of Rey. S. B. Ardagh, A.M 25 11. Oirealar of Rer. Wm. McMurray, D.D., and Answer of Rev. R. Flood, A.M 28 12. Gircnlar of Rot. Wm.McMurray, D.D., and Reply of the Rev. Charles 0. BroQgh, A.B., Rector of the Township of London,C. W.. ....... 29 13. Reply of Rev. Benjtimin Gronyn, A.M., Rector of tbe Town of London, C. W., to the Circular 32 14. Extract from an article in Thk Eoho.^ 36 15. Memorial of the Laity 3t -i ■■•. ■ -A t ■ ^ ' '■ * = i A - ■ . , . - • t'^ ■ ■ ,, :■ . * ^ . ^' . - ■'"■■■■ -V,,,' ' "■ • f^ . TASm odf, ia ...... 3 O.W., 4 in the rk.... 1 8 16 IT 19 .... 21 .... 15 ;ev. R. .... 28 Charles 29 ondon, 32 36 at