^, ■^^v IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 4K/ 1.0 I.I LilM |Z5 ■ii l&i 122 L25 i U 11116 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WnSTIR.N.Y. 149S0 (71«) 872-4903 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical IVIicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques :\ ■ y'.j-i'::^. ajsd II? V&. (£*,'*■;? '^ Kk'Z"'"^'l'^^'^' ■?^/- . Pfe^l ,>' ^''S^i A ^'4^" ^i l'M:?'&' p^''^''^-'"' ' feVv P=S: V: ■ '.■'■..■ ' .'V. ■ -vf ■'-X^'"^::- "M',/-;-. ^jjy^j^ijjjj^^^l^a^Mr i^sy- r THE NIAGARA CHUECH CASE: CONTAlKma THE WHOLB OF THE COEEESPONDENCE AND THE COMMEITS OF THE TOEONTO PRESS THEREON J WITH A PUEFAOE, &c. '"?",'!■■ TORONTO: MAOLEAR AND CO, 16, KING STREET EAST. 1857. ,;^^ (5) «,/*.- .M'^^:>' > ■) ' . ( PREFACE. In giving the history of '* the Niagara Church case" to the public in pamphlet form, I would beg to say, that I am not stimulated by any silly desire ior continued notoriety, nor yet a wish to perpetuate seandal to the Church, although I know there are lips ready to say so. No, I am simply actuated by the feel- ing, — which at the first swayed rae, — that of raising the shield of Truth to protect myself from the violence of those who seem to have thought that the only real use of strength was to exert it against the weak. I could willingly let the wave of oblivion roll over the past, but dare not as I find a virulent spirit still awake against me in some quarters, which would quickly seize every opportunity (for "the Niagara Church case" is not likely to be soon forgotten, its outline and propor- tions are too strong and marked for that,) of calumniating me with the undying bitterness of hate, were the true features of my persecution lost. It matters very little to me what any petty clique or any individual, however exalted, may think of me ; but it may matter much v h«,t society thinks^ for ♦*fair name in man or woman is the imm ;diate jewel of their souls ;" and in five or ten years hence it may be important, indeed when some remark is made, for me to have a connected whole of what may then be only remembered in fart to point to. A single pamphlet in my possession may then be precious, when some parties may doubtingly ask, can it possibly be so .? Could the Bishop act so unjust, — so base — and insane a part? Then the production of the pamphlet will set the question at rest, the oppressor and the oppressed will again be placed before the unimpassioned view of the enquirer. — I know not how the Bishop may feel about the matter, but for myself, I am not afraid of the verdict. iv PREFACE. Even at the present time I feel the necessity for a connected history of the case being given to the public. Some persons have only read an occaHional part here and there — some have heard, from false lips, a pretended detail of the aflair without having heard or read my defence. And I have ample proof of a few time-serving characters giving the most mendacious views in private — the same parlies lacking the spirit or the ability to utter their sentiments publidy. One point in particular, they make great capital out of — they assert thut I wrote impertinent letters to the Bishop, which caused his Lordship to refuse me letters testimonial. The two letters they allude to (the only letters I ever wrote to the bishop,) will be foun'l in the body of the pamphlet, one written to the Bishop hunself, dated Novem- ber 4th, 1856, the other addressed to his Lordship's Secretary, dated December 5th, 1856. Let any man, not an idiot, read those letters and try can he point out ji single impertinent or insolent expression in them. I am lost in wonder when I think of the hardihood of my persecutors! Are they not afraid when they remember that Iheir acts and mine are written in the eternal roll in Heavens Chancery, — and that at the dread day of compt they and I will hear them read out before assembled worlds at that pure Bar where earthly folly will not gild — where earthly distinctions will avail not, — where no precedence will be given to the lawn sleeve over the rag of the beggar, — where not only our acts, but also the motives which prompted us will be exposed. Where it will be shown whether they or I have acted from an honest zeal or not, — whether it was the love of God's Church because it was God's Church, or their own irascibility and love of lordly domination which influenced them^ and also whether it was a sense of duty to my Redeemer, or sinister motives ^hich actuated me. Yes, both our parts have been played — our acts have been iregistered by the recording angel — I would not change places with them. I have asked are they not afraid — but I would ask, are they not ashamed too ? I know they are ashamed of what the world thinks. I know they would like the power of buying up the public knowledge and recollection of " the Niagara Church "^=f= ' ^T-— -TT-^- W'- ■• PREFACE. will Bar ions the our )sed. rom urch ove ther ivea case." The curtain was raised in a way they did not expect, and all the unsightly machinery exposed to view. The plot was imposing, but the bungling of the actors ruined the drama. And then the miserable effort to rectify the first mistake ! (one can scarcely repress a smile at their incfRcienoy,) not all the talent (?) of the commissioners could do it. Rural Dean Fuller tried, but though he may have skill enough to calculate interest y of make unholy speculaliona^ for a (;rand scheme like that he undertook in Niagara, though possessing all the vicious ambition, he lacked the ability. No doubt but blinded by his vanity he deceived himself as well as the Bishop. He told at head quarters that he was prepared, — that all was right, that he had got hold of the right mariy — one who had no nice scru- ples — who would give the necessary mddical testimony with regard to the moral insanity ! But what a farce ! what a failure ! what a dirty trick, for a Bishop and a Rural Dean to be detected in. Great stress has been laid upon my conduct in that I did not go to the Bishop when I first discovered the secret about Mr. Creen, and tell him rather than act myself in the matter. Those enemies who use this argument against me, I despise, — but to satisfy the enquiry of honest men, I will repeat what may be found in the body of the correspondence, that I was solemly bound to secrecy, and was I to adopt the Romish idea, that although bound, I might tell a bishop ? And even if I was base enough to do so, what proof beyond my own word could I ofler ? Neither Mr. Dickson nor Mr. Woodruff (the only two who could prove it) woul^ come forward to sustain the charge, becau: c made contrary to their wishes. What a position I would then be in ! How open to the tender mercies of those who gave truth to the winds, and asserted' that I had my eye on the Rectorship. Why, the bringing forward such a charge without sufficient evidence to establish it, would be overwhelming proof for them. I repeat that neither of the above named gen- tlemen would have come forward to sustain the cli arge, nor would they subsequently have done so but lor circumstances which were accidentally developed afterwards. Indeed the wonder now is that they should have allowed themselves to be paraded as witnesses in the case, the day'-thal Archdeacon PREFACE. Bethunc and his confrereei, Mr. Atkinson, of St. Catharines, and Mr. Givens, ot Yoritville, dimly reflected Episcopal dignity in St. Mark's, Niagara. Defeated upon every point of the case itself^ my enemies shift their ground and say, ''ay, but think of his publishing a//, and that in the 6r/o66 too ? What else was it for, but to injure the Church } " My answer is that I did not publish until they bad wound up their case, and done the worst they couid against me. My turn then came. Not for revenge, but to seek jus- tice. I say I only published to protect myself by giving the public the reasons why I was excluded from sacred duties, and not until patience was exhausted by vain endeavours for recon- ciliation, — not until I had been insuUed in my interview with the Bishop — not till I had asked lor letters testimonial, (in order that I might leave the diocese) from the Secretary, the morning that he boasted of his serpent like qualities, — no, not until the I2th of January, even four months after the " unprece- dented outrage," (the 7th of September) had been committed. Yes, for four months I had withered under the unmerited rage of not only the Bishop, but every petty underling who thought he should kick because his master kicked. Creatures who magnified themselves on account of their accidental position, forgetting that although on pedestals, they were only common flower pots, not genuine Etruscan vases. And in the Globe too! Why not in the Globe ? If l«sought publicity for the matter, why not go to the most widely circula- ted journal ? In all their shots at me, they fired wide of the mark. My only (apparent) error was in going to Church on the 7th Sep- tember. Remove this from the story and I have done no wrong. But upon this point I am ably defended in the Reverend John Torrance's letter of January the 24th. He takes the responsi- bility of my going to Church that day upon himself, and shows how the whole thing occurred with a candour and independence that does him honor- And here, I would say, that for writing that letter, and openly expressing his views at the vestry meet- ings, the curs have barked at his heels too. But indepen- dent in worldly matters — and respected in his own Province, as a devoted presbyter of nearly twenty years standing, he was i I PREFACE. VU beyond the reach of their petty tricks and enmity. I will add, and I can tell the Bishop also, that I have in private hoard more than half a score of my clerical brethren, strong churchmen too, denounce the Bishop's conduct, and express their disgust in no very measured terms, but Mr. Torrance was the only one who had the courage to put his sentiments on paper. He was independent, the bishop held the purse strinos of the OTHEKB. If, after all, I had been put upon my trial, the only charge I could be arraigned upon, whether found guilty or not after- wards, would probably be that of indiscretion — or oreach of discipline, — or violation of etiquette. If even found guilty of this mighty offence, would justice apply the lash? Should simple indiscretion be treated as a crime ? Would conviction justify the setting aside holy orders ? Let clergy and laity settle the question in their own minds. But why talk of trial, — it was star chan; her work all through. " I will give thee a bad name, mad dog, mad dog," was the cry. The fiendish clamour would have broken the heart of some. A sensitive spirit would have been driven to madness by it. If my readers could know all the details, how strongly moved would be their better feelings, and their sense of viola- ted right. Take the following item as a proof of what I say. At one of the vestry meetings, where some brave and up- right hearts were assembled to tell the Bishop he was not in- fallible, the Churchwarden read out the principal precious communication from Mr. Grasett, the bishop's Secretary, which contained his Lordship's thunder, and was announced as "an official document, but one which was not to be made public." " What sir! " cried the Honorable Walter Dickson, with honest indignation " after having read a document in which Mr* Reynolds is vilified before about two hundred people, to tell us that it is not to be made public, and refuse a copy of it, — call you that justice ?" Justice I away with the word, impeachment was comdem- NTATION, — ACCUSATION PROOF, TYRANNOUS ABUSE OF POWER JUDGMENT. Thus docs the Bishop govern by virtue of his position in the Church. Can he really believe the Christian ^ode is his rule of government ? I doubt it. Locke says, vm PREFACE. " wherever law ends, tyranny ' ^gins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm." It were idiotic flattery, to say that the great reasoner's view does not apply to his Lordship in " the Niagara Church case/' for unintelligible will was his only rule, — precedent was defied — Christian charity was defied — common sense was defied — all that is called law was defied ! Down, down, in the dust, beggar — slave ! am I not your Lord Bishop, how dare you rear your crest before me ? In collecting material for this pamphlet, I have confined my- self to the correspondence, &c., which appeared in the Toronto journals only, though the press throughout the Province teemed with matter, showing its detestation of might thus trampling down RioHT. But the embracing all that appeared upon the subject would swell the pages to an unwieldy bulk. The small portion of the press which took an adverse view in the beginning of my case, would, no doubt, have acted differently did it suspend its remarks to a subsequent period. For in- stance the only articles that appeared in the Colonist and Lead- er are based upon the pre<"Tmption that I sought the IJectorship of Niagara. This error arose from the too hasty flight of criti- I cism before the matter was sufficiently understood. That pre- sumption, however was quickly exploded at an early period of the correspondence, and consequently the sting was drawn from the articles in the above named journals. I take for grant- ed that the writers themselves soon discovered that th^ had fallen into error. When the reader shall have perused the following pages to the end, I am strongly of the opinion, that the conclusion he will arrive at is this : that I made a mistake in going to Church (though with the best intention) on the 7th of September, knowing as I did the Rector to be an unholy man — but having gone, I was quite right in not taking the Sacrament at his hands. My declining to do so, exposed that Rector's unworthi- ness, and while his guilt was proved and acknowledged, still because although under the dictation of conscience, I showed that vice existed where it should not be found, I was visited with enormous cruelty and oppression. And all to save ap- pearances in the Church. H. D. R. \W THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. {Article from the Globe of January \ith, \86l.) AP- ^1' In to-day's paper will be found the particulars of an affair which has recently created no little feeling in the quiet Town of Niagara. A more lamenlable narrative, from beginning to end, has not often been presented to public gaze. It was not without much hesitation that we decided to give the documents a place in our columns ; but having arrived at the conclusion that Mr, I?eynolds was exceedingly ill-used ; that he had been dismisseu from his charge without trial, and apparently without any good cause ; and that reproach and suspicion might cling to him, in consequence, for the remainder of his days — we could not deny the reverend gentleman an opportunity of setting him- self right before the world. Moreover, very lamentable as the affair is, there is public instruction to be drawn from every part of it — and if injury may result from the exposure of immoralities by ministers of Christianity, a much worse evil may be done by cloaking them over. Thank God, the truth of Christianity does not rest on the conduct of its professors. The first reflection that presents itself on reading the docu- ments, is the frightful depravity of the Rector of Niagara. And yet this man has been for many years a public teacher of mo- rality in the employment of the State, with two hundred pounds a year from the public chest ! Nay, only last year — while he was deliberately sapping the morality of one of his flock, — some nine thousand dollars were extracted from the pockets of the people to secure his life services on behalf of the public mora- lity ! What a comment on State subsidies to sectarian purposes. And Bishop Slrachan permits Mr. Creen, convicted of such conduct, to retain his title as Rector of the Church of England, and his State pension for life ! But the man who accidentally became possessed of Mr. Green's crime and is ilorced to divulge it — he dismisses from his charge, banishes from his diocese, and mayhap inflicts a stigma upon for life ! The crime of the seducer in the eye of the Bishop, is venial ; but to publish it, is an offence unpardonable. Is this the Christian morality? 10 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. But the most curious page in the narrative h the treatment of the congregation of Niagara by Bishop Strachan. Such a picture of clerical assumption, not to say tyranny, we hardly recollect encountering in a Protestant church. The humiliating attitude in which the Christian people are permitted to approach the clerical magnate — the lofty pinnacle from which " his Lordship'* talks down at them — the cool manner in which he banishes their pastor and proposes to fasten on them another of " my clergy," without the slightest regard to the wishes of the congregation — all remind one of a different age and of other lands. And, then, the magnificent distance at which the poor curate is thrust off — the interposition of Secretary Grasett be- tween the wind and his nobility — the abject prostration at the Bishop's feetdemanded as the price of the great man's favour and permission to preach the Gospel ! Can it all have really occurred in Toronto and in the year fifty-six ! Oh ye fishermen of Galilee, little recked ye the style of humility that would be practised by the "descendants of the Apostles" in these latter days. Well, there is consolation in it all. The resolutions passed unanimously by the congregation of St. Mark's show that the right spirit is among the people yet. — that independence has not been altogether crushed out by the frigidity of the system. It is very obvious that Anglican episcopacy needs modification in this western world, and if there are many congregations like that of Niagara, in Western Canada, we should say that it will be rnodified at no distant day. It was a noble movement that for the establishment of a Synod, and the independence of the Canadian branch of the Protestant Episcopal Church. May it have full success. But is Mr. Reynolds absolutely to be sacrificed — to be for- bidden from preaching, banished from the country, refused even the common justice of a trial, or an honourable discharge just because Bishop Strachan is offended at him ? Is there no remedy, no mode of redress ? And can the Bishop act thus to- wards any oneof the clergymen of his diocese— has he the whole body under the crushing influence of his despotic will ? Have other congregations been compelled to humiliate themselves in his ante-room — other brother clergymen to debase themselves in the dust and be spurned from his door ? The thing is incredible. The following correspondence has been placed in our hands, with an earnest request from the Rev. Mr. Reynolds and mem- bers of the Niagara congregation, that in justice to them we will give it publicity. However disagreable the publication of such matters, we cannot refuse compliance : — THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 11 ( To the Editor of the Globe. ) Sir, — Feeling myself much aggrieved by the conduct pursued towards me by the Bishop of Toronto, and being desirous of vindicating my character before the world, I will feel much obliged by your publishing the correspondence herewith sent. Let me hope that you will not refuse me the opportunity of explaining a transaction which might, without such explanation, seriously affect me in the eyes of the public. I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, Henry Dunbar Reynolds. STATEMENT OF THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. In the month of October, 1855, the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, for- merly of Quebec Diocese, casually visited Niagara, and was invited by the Rev. Thomas Creen, Rector of St. Mark's, to preach a sermon in aid of the Widows' and Orphans' Fund, upon which occasion he was so completely acceptable to the congregation, that they warmly solicited him to abiv. , me. What so egregious a transaction am I chargeable with? What unatoneable crime have I committed ? Is it something which renders every amount or degree of submission on my part of no avail in appeasing your indignation? If I have been guilty of any grave offence \ ought, in common justice, to be put upon my trial, and if found really guilty, ] will cheer- fully submit to any sentence which youi wisdom may pro- nounce. " But the greatest error which is even hinted at, as having been committed by me, is an error of judgment — a single breach of discipline. Have you no correction wherewith to chasten me for this offence, and then take me back into your favour ? " My lord, it is evident that you have received an incorrect or corrupt statement of the case from some ill-disposed person, who has sought (through prejudice against me, ) to lead astray that sagacity which has ever been admired even by your lord- ship's enemies. You know, my lord, that it is not a new thing — that wisdom has often before been imposed upon by malice. I may have done wrong in some sense — I am willing to sup- pose I have erred, according to your judgment, but I appeal to you as a father, and one whose authority I acknowledge to censure — to correct me if you will — but I ask you for the sake of common justice, and for the sake of your own dignity, not to crush me altogether, and that unheard^ too. I believe if I had a fair hearing I could alter or modify completely your lord- ship's views, with regard to my late conduct, for which I have incurred your displeasure, and prove to your satisfaction, that you have not in your lordship's diocese a more obedient presby- ter — one more ardently attached to the Church of England in all 16 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. f ' its purity, nor one more anxious, in his humble sphere, to uphvui that Church in all its integrity as to forms, ritual and discipline. *'I am, my Lord, " Your lordship's very humble, " And obedient servant, *• Henry Dunbar Reynolds.'* To this letter the Rev. Mr. Grasett, as the Bishop's Secretary, returned the following reply : — " To the Rev. H. D. Reynolds. "Toronto, November 10, 1856. " Rev. and Dear Sir, — I am directed by the Bishop to ac- knowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th instant. " You speak of a ' displeasure on the part of the Bishop that puzzles and amazes you,' of ' indignation to be appeased,' of * an incorrert and corrupt statement of your case by some ill- disposed person,' of his ' having been imposed upon by malice.' These and other expressions? are, in his Lordship's judgment, far from being calculated to remove the unfavourable impres- sion made upon his mind in regard to your good sense and discretion, or your power of discriminating accurately between right and wrong. They are also regarded as being scarcely consistent with the courtesy which is due to your diocesan. In order, however, to convince you that his Lordship has form- ed his judgment on no insufficient grounds, I am directed to enclose an extract from the report of the late commission in Mr. Green's case. On reading this, you will perceive that your conduct was carefully investigated by the Archdeacon and three others of the most respectable and experienced Presby- ters of the Diocese, and that the Bishop's part has been merely to approve and confirm their deliberate and well considered decision. " The Bishop has little inclination to treat you- or any other clergyman who has erred in like manner with harshness or severity, however seriously such errors may affect the good order and discipline of the Church. If you can afford his Lordship any sufficient reason to believe that you are sensible of the wrong that you have committed, he will not be unwilling to allow you an opportunity of retrieving your character in some part of the diocese remote from the scene of your late indiscretions, and in a charge where a possible failure of sound judgment and discretion would operate less disastrously upon the interests of the Church. i ■fQ- THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 17 touphi) .1 iscipline. rwoLDs.'* ecretary, 1856. p to ac- hop that ised,' of )me ill- malice.' igment, impres- nse and )etween icarcely ocesan. LS form- cted to sion in at your )n and resby- mereiy iidered r other ess or J good • rd his nsible illing ter in late sound upon i " I am to request that any farther communications to the Bishop upon this subject may be addressed through me as his Secretary. " I remain, *♦ Rev. and dear Sir, " Your faithful servant, " H. J. Grasett, Secretary." (( EXTRACT FROM COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. *' At the same time that we thus affirm our opinion in regard " to the position of Mr. Creen, we are bound to be equally ex- " plicit in the expression of our belief that it would be inex- " pedient and unwise to permit the further ministrations in the " Parish of Niagara of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, the assistant " Minister. He stands so manifestly in the light of a public *' prosecutor of Mr. Creen, as is obvious, from the tenor of his " letter to Mr. Churchwarden Powell, and the previous con- " duct which produced it— rand he has evinced, besides, so " much strong feeling, want of discretion, arid violation of " good taste — that not only must his services as a minister be " unacceptable to a large body of the people in Niagara, but " there will not unnaturally be a suspicion of wrong and sel- " fish motive in the course he has pursued. His giving publi- " city to the charge that impure advances had been made by " Mr. Creen to another lady, is a most unjustifiable proceed- " ing, as creating the suspicion and even the belief of a fresh *' crime on the part of Mr. Creen, without affording him the " means of defence. Although the course that Mr. Reynolds " has thought proper to pursue may have been prompted by " conscientious motives, which we do not venture to dispute, " yet we cannot refrain from expressing a strong protest " against the act of any clergyman who, in the capacity of " curate or assistant minister, takes a prominent part in the " inculpation of his Rector, at a time when a way was obvi- " ously open to effect the same end without his direct or active " interference." m In reply to Mr. Grasett's communication, Mr. Reynolds thus rejoined : — To the Rev. H. J. Grasett. « Niagara, C. W., December 5th, 1856. " Reverend Sir, — Upon ray return home, after an absence of some weeks, I found your letter of the 10th ultimo awaiting me. I take the earliest opportunity of replying to it. If I was a a THE NIAGARA CHURCU CASE. before •* puzzled and amazed," I am again ''puzzled and amazed " at the comments your letter contains upon mine of the 4lh ult., addressed to the Bishop. To say the least, you make a cruel attempt to show that I liave been disrespectful to the Bishop ; whereas, whoever will read my letter will, I am sure, at once recognize the .spirit of absolutely filial obedience which dictated it. For the Bishop I have ever had and still have as profound a respect, and as firm and sincere a regard lor his authority as any other clergyman in our Church can have. Nor would I feel 'a less jealous concern where that authority was infringeii or disregarded than you or any other man breathing. " Where is the wonder, or how can it be shown to be ' scarcely consistent with the courtesy which is due to my Diocesan,' if 1 protest that ' I am puzzled and amazed ' at being charged with having committed acts of which I am wholly unconscious, as are also those amongst whom these acts are said to have been committed. *' How can it be proved to be •' scarcely consistent with the courtesy which is due to my Diocesan' \o humbly crave an opportunity of making my defence with a view of ' appeasing' that 'indignation ' which the Bishop declares he feels; on ac- count of " an unprecedented outrage " committed by me. And surely there is no disrespect in affirming my belief that the wrongs under which I suffer have not emanated from the Bishop after having taken a deliberate view of the case, but have been the result of the tortured shape and false colours in which the case has been presented to his Lordship in the " in- correct and corrupt statement of some evil disposed person," assuredly it is not disrespeciful or inconsistent to suppose the possibility of his Lordship or the wisest man living being im- posed upon by a malicious or cunningly devised statement. Where, then, is the room for the severity of your remarks upon the language used by me? " I am again " amazed " at that passage in your letter in which you state that my " conduct was carefully investiga- ted by the Archdeacon and three others of the most respectable and ex[)erienced Presbyters of the Diocese, and that the Bishop's part has been merely to approve and confirm their deliberate and well considered decision." It conveys to me the first intimation that I have been tried for any offence. I supposed, as did every one else, that the Commissioners were sent to INVESTIGATE Mr. Green's conduct, not mine. If they were trying me, I was surely treated in a less equitable way than the rector. For he was tried on specific charges— had THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 19 zled and mine of ast, you K'Ctful to ill, I am obedience and still 1 regard Jich can lere that ly other n to be 3 to my zed ' at li I am n these vith the '■rave an •easing' , »' on ac- . And hat the nm the ise, but ours in le " in- Tson," •so the ng im- menl;. upon ttcr in ?tiga- ;table It the their jo me e. I Iwere they I way -had •&& those charges stated to him — told what he had to defend him- self against, and moreover, was allowed counsel to defend him; whilst I simply stood by, imagining myself a mere spectator in the court, not being the ''jjros'^cM/or," nor as I deemed, the ''*■ prosecuted y I was certainly asked one question by Mr. Green's counsel, and my answer was somewhat favourable to tne accused. "With regard to the "extract" from the Commissioner's report which you have supplied me with, I have only to say that they seem to have erred — sadly erred in the view they have taken of my conduct on the day of the investigation. In fact, I could scarcely su|)pose the writers of that extract to have been present. Surely they could not have been asleep when I was urged to acknowledge myself as Mr. Green's prosecutor, and I emphatically refused to assume that position. Decidedly, they must remember that I distinctly told them that " I knew it was part of the plan adopted from th(; beginning, by the friends of the accused party to thrust me forward as the Rector's prose- cutor, and thereby distract the public attention from him and his frailties by throwing odium on me, — that 1 insisted I was not his accuser, — 1 had lodged no informations with the Bishop ag-ainst him, nor had I any feeling one way or the other in the result of the enquiry." In this assertion 1 was warmly sup- ported by the Hon. Walter Dickson, (who gave the chief testi- mony on the occasion.) He with manly ardour, battled to protect me from the unenviable position which he and every rational man present could see I was wrongfully placed in. His words were to this effect: " that he and every member of -the congregation were prosecutors as much as I was ; that it was quite clear from my passive conduct, and from the fact of my not having framed any regular case against Mr. Green, for which there was ample scope, that I was not his prosecutor.'* Indeed, I thought his arguments were conclusive, and that the question was settled otherwise than it appears to have been. As to its being " obvious " that I was prosecutor " from the tenor of my letter to Mr. Churchwarden Powell," I beg to state my belief that few men would come to that conclusion. That letter was not written willingly, but was forced from me after repeated applications for my reasons for not officiating with Mr. Cieen at the Holy Communion, and was only intended to supply those reasons, and not to serve as an indictment drawn up upon which the Rector was to be arraigned before any tribunal. As to " the previous conduct which produced it," I know of none, nor can you state any but the above refu- sal. Surely I have a right to refuse to receive the Sacrament at the hands of an adulterer. But, after all, there was no over- 20 TUE NIAOARA CIIURCII CASK. ^1 r slatement of facts in my letter, for the accused was found guilty of the three several charges mentioned in that letter, namely, '* DrunkennesH, habits of falschuod, and his attempt lo fpduce Mrs. ." *' f ( ;»nnot suppose that you deem ir.y language was too strotjg in (hiit letter, or that the title ' adulterous debauchee' was inappli' '' le to a man convicted ol flic crime which .Vlr. Crcen was. AKuin, as to my ' giving publicity to the charge that impure advances had been made to another lady, while I re.-tohitely withheld the name of that lady, is a most unjustifiable proceed iti|k " In the iianv* of justice what would they have me do I Conscience woukl scarcely permit mo to conceal the fact that a communication was made to me that he had vw.h those ' impure advances,' whilst the party entrusting ruf v ^h the secret extracted from me the strictest pledge to br ilent as to the name of the individuiil upon whom tint utt .ij vas matle. Would they have me violate that pl'-'dg , .nd degiiide me as a liar ti> a level with the wretched om .inninal they were trying? I told them that if sneh evidence would be admitted, I was willing to swear to the facts of the case as communi(^ated to me, bnl must conceal the name of tin; indi- vidual upon whom the attempt was made. It seems strange that the commissioners should have menticmcd this ease m iheir report, as it did not go in evidence against Mr. Green, he being tried only for the three crimes mentioned in my letter to the Churchwarden. I cannot refrain from smiling at their fears at my mentioning this matter, ' as creating the suspicion and even the .elief of a fresh crime on the part of Mr. Creen, without aUordinii; him the means of defence.' His character was not likely to be damaged by it, as even this is not the only case in which he has made ' impure advances,' as is well known in the Parish. " In this or any other defence I may make, I do not intend any disrespect to the Bishop. Is it not the right of every man when accused of an offence, to ask the time, place, and manner in which it was committed r The Bishop (I speak with all respect) has charged me with hnv-ni? committed '•an unprece- dented outrage.'' That must have mru 'he not aiving the Sacrament at Mr. Careen's hand? ' .^' ?:■' i not help having been told the secret by Mr. Woodruii, wnich caused me not to take it, and he bound me not to tell the Bishop or anij one else with- out his leave. There was nothing left for me to do but that which every one is at liberty to do, to decline receiving the Sacrament. Is this an outrage ? And added to this I seem to tr held responsible for every subsequent development of guilt, and also every act of clumsy management, based in the be- ma I I' t«« THE NIAGARA CllUHCH CASE. 21 -^as found int letter, 3 attempt was too sbttuchee* Inch At. le charge , while I ustifiable hey have ncvai I he oil vnniQ ill- 111 as inj.t >va8 (legiijtle nal they •oil! J be case as he. indi- strange case m rcen, he letter to t their picioii Creen, laracter le only s well intend y man nanner th alt np'-ece- ng the been o take with- it that ig the em to guilt, e be- ts m' ginning on impertinent and oHicious inquiry. Had I been a cunn \^ pharisee, I might have formally taken the Sacrament. Expeiiicncy certainly prompted it, but consoitMico forbade it. Not^vlth9tall'lin^■, however, the three month**' trouble this affair has cuur^f^d me, hud I to go through the -^ame circumstancea again, I would act as I have done. Mny God Almighty always give ne atrunglii to be — "Too fond or tlie right to pursue the t'vpedient." "But even a respectful defence sroms to bean ' mtrage.' You have told me thai my letter of the 4th to the Bi> ■> ' was scarcely consistent with the courfrsy due to my l)io«. ^an.' And you have in a letter to the Churchwarden (which he -d at the last vestry-meeting) styled my kind and wnrning \vi r to Mr. Creen, before the eventful 7th of September, a jiropos. 1 *to supersede the Rector in his own church.' What v s my proposal ? An entreaty (he being a nervous u- m, a ' lesi confusion on his part, and consequent scandal t ' the ci uroh, should arise) to permit me to ac i os his deputy. I refer you to my letter for the word. Until taught by you, I had yf\ o learn that one acting as a ilepuly could be supposed to ' su sede ' the individual by whom lit was deputed. " I frequently read the service, and preached (by arr;iift - ment between the Rector and n vself) when he was not church — he also frequently taking ,ny turn of duty. That y. may have a simple and unvarnished account (which I an doubtful of your having yet received ) of my action in the whol* matter, I beg leave to enclose you my statement of the case, And am, Reverend Sir, Your obedit nt servant, Henrv Dunbar Reynolds. X MR. REYNOLD 8 STATEMENT Voodruff, ay of the dicament are. My to secrecy resorted, I account en made m on the munion ; Jrmit me im to let what he tvhen he ished to he most neglect unicate that he lamed ially as veil or attend, et all ved in asked was, xpect lly to ser- union anner ay or n the ngat 3sent ndl B met the churchwarden, Mr. Powell, who again pressed me to tell him the secret. I refused upon the same grounds as before. He said he would * write to me as churchwarden, and demand an explanation.' 1 told him * if he wrote to me officially, I supposed I would have to answer.' (I had now leave from Mr. Woodruff to do so.) He wrote that evening, and next morning received my reply. Mr. Creen had the hardihood to have my letter sent to the Bishop, and to demand an inquiry as to the truth of the statement made therein. A commission of enquiry was instituted by his Lordship. On the day of the enquiry, the friends of Mr. Creen endeavoured to thiust me into the unenviable position of a prosecutor. This I repudiated. I did not even send for any witness to prove Mr. Green's attempt on Mrs. L 's virtue, but the churchwarden knew who to send for, and summoned the Hon. Walter Dickson and J. Woodruff, Esq., who proved on oath the serious charge. " This is a plain and simple statement of the facts of the case, and how can it be shewn thereby that I forgot my position towards my superior officer, or sought in any way to injure persecute hinij or to bring scandal on the church .•' What would my censurers have .? Can any one of them write down the name of my offence .'' If they would receive the Sacrament at the hands of such a man as the Rector, (knowing his guilt,) I pity them for their low estimation of that Sacrament and beg to say that my conscience is not so tough as theirs. If I knew a man to be a murderer, or even had got reason to suspect that he was, I would not kneel down and take the Bread of Life from his hands, and surely, if I read God's law aright, he who plots and plans an act of adultery, is on a par with a murderer. The command against the one crime was written as deeply as the command against the other in the table of stone by the fmger of God. " If I were an evil minded man, and really sought to injure Mr. Creen, there is not the malicious satisfaction left that I succeeded, (though he is degraded,) for I absolutely did NOTHING, good or bad. Mine was only expression of opinion, not action of any kind. " Mr. Creen might have gone on unscathed by me forever (as I was bound to secrecy) were it not for the course he and his friend Mr. Powell adopted." Attested copy of Mr. Creen's letter to Mrs. L . " I subscribe with a good conscience to the doctrine of the great Milton, set forth in his prose works from page 224 to page 252, and request a careful perusal of those pages, be- cause I wish to contract an union on these principles, as my u 24 THE NIAGARA CHTTRCH CASE, " wife is good for nothing for that purpose^ and I have always '* admired and regarded you with uncommon affection and " partiality. " If you can return the feelings which I entertain, please to " signify the same by subscribing the initial of your name " under mine, and return the book to me to-morrow with this *' enclosed. *' T. C. " Niagara, May 8th, 1855." Accompanying this villainous epistle was a volume of Milton's prose works. On the 4th of November the largest Vestry meeting ever seen within the walls of St. Marks, Niagara, assembled, when the following memorial to the Bishop in behalf of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds was unanimously adopted, and a deputation appointed to proceed to Toionto, present the petition and re- ceive the reply thereto : — To the Right Reverend John Strachan^ D.D.^ Lord Bishop of Toronto. "My Lord, — The undersigned pew-holders and heads of families, members of St. Mark's Church, Niagara, beg leave respectfully to address your Lordship on the subject of the uneasy and anxious feelings that pervade this congregation, in consequence of an official communication from your Lordship's secretary, read at a general meeting of the parishioners held in Saint Mark's Church on the fourth day of November last, conveying your Lordship's decision on the late investigation held under your commission in this parish. " Your memorialists deem it unnecessary to offer any re- marks upon the judgment pronounced by your Lordship upon the case of the late Rector of this parish, further than this — We respectfully acquiesce in your decision as at once just and merciful, while the necessity which has led to such a decision will ever be deplored by us. But it is with surprise, pain and regret that .ve learn from the same document that our respected assistant minister, the Rev. H. D. Reynolds, has fallen under your Lordship's displeasure, and that in your Lordship's opinion '■ his conduct towards the late Rector has been marked by a lamentable ignorance of what was due to his superiors, and by a deficiency of sound judgment and discretion,' and that, furthermore, he has, ' by adopting a course which violates all rules of order and discipline, manifested himself to be an unsafe person to be entrusted with any responsible office in the church.' " Your memorialists indulge the hope that this mosi severe 'Ai 'iM THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 26 '^e always stion and I please to >ur name with this " T. C. 3lume of ting ever ed, when the Rev. sputation I and re- iishop of leads of ?g leave t of the ition, in rdship's 9rs held >er last, ligation any re- p upon this — 1st and ecision in and pected under iship's jarked eriors, and olates be an ice in eve re censure punounced upon the Rev. Mr. Reynolds has arisen from incorrect information conveyed to your Lordship as to the facts relative to the part taken by the Rev. Mr. Reynolds in the late proceedings against the Rev. Mr. Green. As far as your memorialists are aware, the Rev. Mr. Reynolds has not been charged with any specific offence, and they know no- thing he has done to call upon him so severe a sentence. On the other hand, your memorialists bear cheerful and grateful testimony to the piety, zeal and intelligence with which he has laboured for the spiritual welfare of this parish, to his great ability as a preacher of the Gospel, and general Chris- tian deportment. These have gained for him the cordial es- teem and confidence of a large majority of the members of this congregation. " It is with deep regret, therefore, that your memorialists have heard your decision respecting him. But your memo- rialists will not give up the hope that even should it be found that he has committed a breach of the rules of discipline, or failed in a point of etiquette to his late Rector, your Lordship, considering the peculiar and trying circumstances in which he was placed, will, upon this appeal of the members of St. Mark's Church, regard his fault as not unpardonable, but will be pleased to withdraw your censure, and allow him to resume his clerical duties. " Niagara, 10th November, 1856." [Signed by one hundred and three members of the church, representing about five hundred souls.] OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEPUTATION. " The deputation appointed at the general meeting of pa- rishioners of St. Marks, Niagara, held on the 4th instant, to wait upon the Bishop, and present to him the memorial relating to the suspension of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, beg leave to re- port that, in accordance with the resolutions passed at the meeting, they went to Toronto, on the 13th instant, and called upon his Lordship the same evening, and placed the memorial in his hands, requesting him to fix an hour for an interview on the following day. His Lordship received them courteously, and fixed the hour of two o'clock on the following day for the interview. Accordingly, at the appointed hour, the deputation waited upon his Lordship, and were shown into an ante-room. His Lordship shortly entered, accompanied by a gentleman, whom they supposed to be his Secretary, the Rev. Mr. Grasett. Your deputation then read to his Lordship your memorial with which you entrusted them. To which his Lordship read, in , reply, the answer hereunto affixed : — 26 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. kt'- ( ** Gentlemen, — I have perused, with the attention which '• was due to the subject, the proceedings of the late Vestry " meeting — a copy of which was forwarded to me by Mr. " Churchwarden Powell, and also the address from a respect- able portion of the congregation of St. Mark's Church, Nia- gara, which you have been deputed to present. "In a matter of such extreme delicacy as the interposition " of a congregation between the Bishop and one of his clergy, " in the exercise of an act of discipline, involving, as such a *' proceeding necessarily does, considerations of high and grave *' import, I feel constrained, however reluctantly, to lay before " you information in detail, which otherwise would not have " obtained such publicity. While I regret the necessity which " is thus laid upon me, 1 am consoled by the reflection that the " responsibility of this exposure does not belong to me, but " must fairly be attributed to those who, doubtless, with well '* intended zeal, have over-stepped the limits which a full re- " liance upon the justice and impartiality of the Bishop might " reasonably have prescribed. I accordingly place in your " hands a copy of that portion of the report of late Commis- *' sion in Mr. Green's case which refers to the action of the " Reverend Mr. Reynolds in the matter, and also a copy of " the correspondence which has subsequently passed between " Mr. Reynolds and myself. " It is satisfactory to me to learn that my judgment upon the " case of your late Rector commends itself to your minds as " at once ' just and merciful.' I cannot doubt but the full in- " formation now afforded you in reference to your late assist- *' ant minister will prove no less convincing that towards him " also, no undue severity has been exercised. " In any case, his term of service at Niagara must have ex- '* pired with the incumbency of his late Rector; and I cannot " permit myself to suppose that, had his conduct under the " late painful and distressing circumstances been ever so free " from blame, and even praiseworthy, the congregation could ** have anticipated for a moment that a gentleman so young, and "inexperienced in the ministry, and a comparative stranger in " the diocese, might justly aspire to succeed to the important " parish of Niagara. This would be to inflict a serious injus- " tice, indeed, upon many of my clergy, who have long and " faithfully laboured in the diocese, and have claims on my " consideration which it would be impossible to overlook. " John Toronto. " Toronto, November 14, 1856." His Lordship Chen gave the deputation the papers alluded to THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 27 in his answer, that is, the extract from the Reports of the Com- missioners in the case of the Rev. Mr. Creen, referring to the action of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds in the matter, and also a copy of the correspondence which had subsequently passed between Mr. Reynolds and himself. " Your deputation then addressed his Lordship, by stating that they accepted those documents, and would lay them be- fore the congregation of St. Mark's Church. That without having the least knowledge of their contents as to the estab- lishing any charges against the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, they hoped his Lordship would excuse them while taking the liberty of fulfilling a part of the duty imposed upon them, which was to state to his Lordship the particular, point of dissatisfaction resting in the minds of the congregation ot St. Mark's. That point was, that certain vague charges had been made against their Assistant Minister, the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, upon which he had been sentenced and suspended by his Lordship without a trial ana ivithout a hearing. That they felt keenly the con- trast exhibited in the case of the Rev. Mr. Creen and that of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds. That the one, who stood charged with an act of gross immorality, had had a fair trial, in which he had the assistance of legal counsel, and every opportunity of refuting the charges brought against him — and being convict- ed upon those charges had sentence passed, which was, that he should retire from the Rectory, receiving the emoluments arising from it up to the first day of January next, and then was to receive the same allowance as an old, worthy, retired clergyman, against whom no charge of offence had ever been preferred. While, with respect to the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, he was, upon the vague charge of having committed merely a breach of discipline, thrust out of the ministry without a trial and without even a hearing. That under those circumstances it was the desire of the congregation, that if any charges lay against the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, his Lordship would grant him a fair trial, and thus give to him also an opportunity of defend- ing himself. "With regard to the last objection made in his Lordship's answer, that he could not see for a moment how the congre- gation of Niagara could have anticipated that he would have appointed the Rev. Mr. Reynolds to the Rectory — they (the deputation) would remark, that the congregation never antici- pated or expected such an appointment. That the appoint- ment of a Rector was a matter which they had not yet con- templated. That what the congregation desired in behalf of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds was, that he should be relieved from suspension and allowed to complete his term of engagement, 28 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. MI which in their opinion, and that of many others, did not expire until the first day of January. That all the congregation de- sired was, that he should have a trial on the charges alleged against him, as at present, so far as they were aware, he had done nothing to warrant so severe a sentence as had been pro- nounced against him. "Here his Lordship interposed, observing that he did not wish to have any altercation, as this was not a fit place for it. Your deputation begged his Lordship not to take what was said as altercation, but simply a statement of what they had been commissioned to say to his Lordship, that they might put him in possession of the sentiments entertained by the con- gregation of St. Mark's.. That they had said all this without an idea of what was contained in the documents entrusted to them to convey to JNiagara — and that, in so doing, they be- lieved they had only fulfilled their duty. His Lordship ob- served that the perusal of the documents would alter their views. " Your deputation then retired." A second monster vestry meeting assembled in St. Mark's Church, to hear the Bishop's reply to their memorial, when the following resolutions were put and carried by acclamation : — " Resolved, — 1. That we have heard read the.* Report of the '* Deputation in relation to their interview with the Bishop of " Toronto, on the subject of a memorial presented by them, " which was signed by a large majority of the congregation of " St. Mark's Church, in this Town, which memorial had im- " mediate refer(!nce to the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, the assistant " minister of said parish, and his Lordship's reply thereto, *' together with its accompanying documents. And having " given them all due consideration, we cannot refrain from " saying that we are as much at a loss to understand where we '• have ' overstepped the limits which a full reliance upon the " justice and impartiality of the Bishop might have prescribed,' " as we are to discover that the Rev. Mr. Reynolds has acted " in any mariner not in strict accordance with a sense of propriety *' towards his Lordship, the church over which he presided, or a " due regard for its welfare, when by exposing error and gross " vice in one of its oldest ministers, it cannot but be apparent " to every unprejudiced mind, that he has endeavoured to up- " hold the church in its |)urily, and for v/hich, instead of bring- ing down the censure of the Bishop upon him, he should receive his highest commendations, notwithstanding that he may from a truly honest and laudable zeal have been guilty " of a slight dereliction of etiquette ; but this appears to be a THE NIAGARA CUUKCH CASE. 29 " grealer fault than the actual offence which he is charged with " having been the means of bringing to light.'' " Resolvedy — 2. That we arc unable to perceive how his " lordship can expect us to reconcile his remarks, as quoted in *' the foregoing resolution, with his adoption of the Report of '♦ the Commissioners referred to by him, as the latter does not " harmonize, but seems in every essential point to be at variance " with his lordship's profession of '* justice and impartiality." ^^ Resolved,— S. That having with especial attention heard " read the following extract from his lordship's secretary to the " Rev. Mr. Reynolds, dated lOth ult. — 'The bishop has little " inclination to treat you or any clergyman who has erred in " like manner with harshness or severity, however seriously " such errors may effect the good order and discipline of the " church. If y- u can afford his lordship any sufficient reason " to believe that you are sensible of the wrong that you have " committed, lie will not be unwilling to allow you an oppor- " tunity of retrieving your character in some part of the diocese " remote from the scene of your late indiscretions, and in a " CHARGE WHERE A POSSIBI-E FAILURE OF SOUND JUDGMENT AND " DISCRETION would Operate less disastrously upon the interests " of the church;' — we are puzzled to comprehend upon what " principle the Rev. Mr. Reynolds could be eligible to exercise " his holy calling in one part of Canada and not in another, " when we have always been led to believe that the Church of " Christ is the same everywhere ; and further, we cannot abstain *' from saying that we consider a mure gratuitous insult could " not possibly have been offered to any gentleman, or intended " for the FAR DISTANT CONGREGATION wliich his lotdship may " have in view, than is contained in said paragraph." " Resolved, — 4. That the memorial to the Bishop of Toronto conveyed nothing thatcould or ought to have been construed ' into a request that his Lordship would appoint the Kev. Mr. Reynolds to the Rectory of this Parish — not a single word ^' havimi; such import or tendency having been inserted in it ; our sole object being to have him reinstated in his Lordship's good opinion, and such credentials delivered to him as would " entitle him to preach the Gospel in any church in this Province " where he might find a call for his truly useful and good mi- " nislrations." " Resolved^ — 5. That this meeting cannot pass over the Re- " port of the three lleverend gentlemen sent hither by hisLord- " ship to take evidence in the matter alluded to, without saying " that nothing more disingenuous^ uncharitable or arbitrary could " have been penned by any persons. They were sent here i(. C( 30 TUB NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. <' ostensibly to take evidence against the late Rector, and it ** appears that they secretly, and from some private source took " down evidence against the Rev. Mr. Reynolds (that gentleman ** nor any of his friends being aware that such was the inten- ** tion of the Commissioners), and of course precluded him " from justifying himself against any charges made against him. •* Moreover, had they but used a very small portion of that reason " which the Almighty hasendowed them with, notwithstanding " that the ' impure advances to another lady,' on the part of the " late Rector of this parish, had not, in a legal point of view, *' been proved, ihey would have perceived that neither had they "nor he the power of compelling the unknown female to give " evidence in the matter ; and that, therefore, it would not have " been either honourable or manly on the part of the Rev. Mr. " Reynolds to have published her name, or that of any other " female ; especially when no possible good could haveresrlted " from so doing ; and more particularly when, if the late Rector " had felt himself perfectly innocent of the charge alluded to, " there would not have been wanting against the Rev. Mr. " Reynolds that legal redress in the country before another " tribunal, whose authority is ample for the compulsory atten- " dance and examination of all persons in a case." " Resolved, — 6. That this meeting also takes unqualified ex- " ception to the i^isidious remark against the Rev. Mr. Reynolds " in the Report alluded to, where he is most unworthily supposed " to have had a greater desire to bring the conduct of the late " Rector before the world, ' from a selfish motive,' than any " other, and say that such insinuation (if not positive assump- " tion on their part) would accord better with the doings at " one lime in other places than ever have been or it is hoped " ever will be sanctioned in a dependency of Great Britain." " Resolved, — 7. That since it appears there is little hope left " for the Rev. Mr. Reynolds to obtain redress through the " means hitherto usted by and for him, and as, fortunately, there " is still a higher tribunal for him to appeal to, we most earnestly " recommend him to use his privilege by sending to the Arch- " bishop of Canterbury a full statement of his case, who no " doubt will order thii justice to be done him, which has been " denied him in this country." The conclusion of the matter will be found in the following letters: — " To the Rev. H. J. Grasett : " Niagara, C. VV., January 8th, 1857. " Rev. and Dear Sir, — As I do not desire to take employ- ment in any other locality in this diocese, may I beg of you as THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 9L the Bishop of Toronto's Secretary, to oblain for me such letters or other named documents as are usually given to clergymen ceasing to have connection with any particular diocese in which they have been engage I am, &c., (Signed,) " Henry Dunbab Reynolds.'' " To the Rev. E. D. Reynolds : Toronto, 9th January, 1857. " Rev. and Dear Sir, — I have laid before the Bishop your applications for letters testimonial. His lordship will comply with your request, provided you withdraw the offensive letters recently addressed to him, and express your regret for having written them. It is presumed to be your intention to leave the diocese, but you will have the goodness to be explicit on this point, as it is only under such circumstances that it is customary to furnish letters testimonial. " I have the honour to be, " Rev. and dear Sir, '• Your obedient servant, " H. J. Gkasett, " Secretary." i THE BISHOP OF TORONTO AND THE REV. MR. REYNOLDS. (T'Vom the Daily Colonist, January \%th, 1857.) The Globe of yesterday devotes five columns to an elaborate attempt to injure the position of the Bishop of Toronto, by making it appear that His Lordship has interfered, in the first place, to shield from punishment the Rector of Niagara, the Rev. Mr. Creen ; and, secondly, that he has unjustly visited with censure and deprivation the Rev. H. D. Reynolds, assistant minister ai that place. So far as the Bishop is concerned, we have no doubt His Lordship would be very well content to leave the matter to the public upon Mr. Reynolds' own statements ; but as the Globe has, as usual, endeavoured to wrest the facts to political purposes, we feel it necessary to enter into some details of the ca^e. The origin of the charge against Mr. Creen we give in Mr. Reynolds' own words (the italics being his own): — A few days before Sunday, the 7th of September (which was Communion Sunday in St. Mark's Church) as was my custoni, 82 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. I took my rounds through the Parish, with the view of impress- ing upon the minds of the several members of the congregation the importance and necessity of a due attention to the Holy Communion. Amonij:st others I visited Joseph Woodruff, Esq. In my conversation with that gentleman, Mr. Green's name was mentioned. f\nd that with every respect by me, as up to that hour I did respect him. Mr. Woodruff remarked — 'You don't know the man, he is an old rascal.' 'Ah,' said I, 'yru are mistaken, people I knowspeak harshlyof him, charging him with many sad things, but for my part I think him a good man.' ' I will change your opinion very soon,' replied Mr. Woodruff, ' but you must first pledge me your word and honour not to divulge a ivordof'what I am going to tdl you without my leave."* I pledged myself, and he then disclosed the abominable details of Mr. Green's attempt to seduce Mrs. , at the same time reading for me a copy of the Rector's letter to that lady. (This was a true copy of the original, being sworn to by the Hon. Walter Dickson and J. Woodrutf, Escj., and admitted to he so hy Mr. Creen, on the day of the investigation.) I need not attempt to describe the predicamem in which I found myself placed by Mr. W.'s disi^losure. My first impulse was to inform the Bishop, but my pledye to secrecy furhade that. I had no alternative but that to which I resorted, namely, to write a letter to the Rector, stating that on account of certain reports concerning 'lim which I had been made acquainted with, i could not conscientiou^^iy assist him on the following day in the administration of the ilo'y Gommunion ; that he must either take the whole duly himself, or permit me to take the entire service as his deputy, begging of him to let me know by letter before ten o'clock next morning what he would do. (Hewas in the habit of sending a note when he desired that 1 should take all the duly, when he wished to absent himself.) I added, that I entreated him in the most Ghristian and brotherly spirit to be discreet and not neglect my hint. Nevertheless, Mr. Green did not write or communicate with me in any way. Perceiving this, I really thought that he comprehended my allusions to his guilt, and was so ashamed that he would not think of appearing at church, especially as I knew him to be a nervous man, and that when unwell or agitated he had, I was told, more than once failed to attend, thereby causing confusion in the church. ' My object all through was to prevent public scandal.' When I. arrived in church many of the congregation were assembled. I asked the sexlon was Mr. Green in the building ? He said he was, and that he had told him (the sexton) that he did not expect me that morning. What was left for me to do but quietly THE Nl GAR* ClfURCi CASE. 3ft < to take my seat in a pew, .vhich I lid. § fvioe pn "wd, the sermon ended, and bei'ore the servic if the »4i)ly Communion commenced, I left the church as noise ssly, and in a tnaimer as little remarkable as passible) with many others. A day or two afterwards tin; chnrch\ arden Mr. Powell, met me in the street and asked me to account to him for my not assisting at the communion. I said I would not tell hi.m, as at present it was a private matter between the Rector and myself and I did not wish to injure him. A few days after this, I again met the churchwarden, Mr. Powell, who again pn-'ssed me to tell him the secret. I refused upon the same grounds as befare. He said he would " write to me as churchwarden, and demand an explanation." I told him if he wrote to me officially, I supposed 1 would have to answer* (I had now leave from Mr. Woodruff to do so). He wrote that evening and next morning received my reply. Mr. Creen had the hardihood to have my letter sent to the Bishop and to demand an enquiry as to the truth of the statements made therein. A commission of enquiry was instituted by his Lordship. On the day of inquiry the friends of Mr. Creen endeavoured to thrust me into the unenviable position of a prosecutor. This I repudiated. 1 did not even send for any witness to prove Mr. Creen's attempt on Mrs. 's virtue, but the churchwarden knew who to send for, and summoned the Hon. Walter Dickson and J. Woodruff, Esq., who proved on oatli the serious charge. The Commissionners appointed by the Bishop to examine into the case were, the Venerable Archdeacon Bethune, the Rev. T. B. Fuller (Rural Dean of the Niagara District), the Rev. A. F. Atkinson (of St. Catharines), and the Rev. Saltern Givens, (Rural Dean). These gentlemen proceeded !o inves- tigate the case, and the result was, that they found the Re^'. Mr. Creen guilty of the charge laid against him. The Bishop thercu[)on, in consideration of the long services and declining years of Mr. Creen, gave him the option of either standing a formal trial, which would probably have resulted in his entire degradation, or of resigning his Rectory, by which means he would become entitled to the retiring pension of £100 a-year. Mr. Creen adopted the latter course, and Dr. McMurray has been appointed to ihe Rectory of Niagara, into the charge of which lie entered on the first of January last. So far, it will be seen the Bishop acted both firmly and mercifully ; and that the members of the congregation at Niagara thought so, is evident from the following extract from a memorial which they presented to Dr. Strachan subse- quently : — ?': 34 TIIK MAGAHA CHURCH CASE. " Your memorialists derm it nnnorfr«snry looffrrnny remnrlcs upon ihc jii(l<„ti>»-'if proiionticed hy your Lordship upon tlic case of llu' late Rector ol this parish, iiirlher than this — We respcel- fiilly aequieace in yonr decision as at once just and merciful, while ijic necessity which has led to such a decision will ever be deplored l)y us.'' Thus much lor the Ct/ohf\s assertion, that " Bishop Sfrachan permits Mr. Creen, convict* d of such conduct, to retain his title as Hector ol the Church ol tnghind, and his State pension for life!" Our contctupoi ary proceeds to say ; — " But the man who accidentally bc(;anie possessed of Mr. Green's crime and is forced to divulge it, he dismisses from his charge, banishes from his diocese, and mayhap inllicts a stigma upon for life ! The crime of the .-^cducc r in liie eye of the Bishop, is venial ; but to publish if, is an offence unpardonable. Is this Christian morality ?" Mr. Keyuolds is a coiup.iralively young man, recently from Bish()[)'s College, I^ennoxvilhs and last year was appointed as Assistant Minister lo Mr. ('recu \\ Niagara. On learning that his superior was chargeable with immoral conduct, instead of laying the matter before th/ Bishop of Toronto, and aslunu' his advice, he chose to take a course which could only end in a flagrant public scandal, as what elsecouM the tact of a curate's openly refusing to ofliciate in company with his Rector, be expected to produce? The tnau who professes to keep a secret, and yet acts so as lo betray its existence to all the world, has a singular id(;a of good faith. Be that as it may, however, the assertion that Mr. Reynolds hns >e proved 1o be ' scarcely consistent with the courtesy which is due to my Diocesan' to humbly crave an op- portnnily of making my defence* with a view of ' appeasing' that ' indignation' which the Bishop declares he feels on account of ' an unprecedented outrage' committed by me. And surely there is no disrespect in affirming my belief that the wrongs under which I suffer have not emanated from the Bishop after having taken a deliberate view of the case, but have been the result of the tortured shape and false colours in which the case has been presented to his Lordship in the 'incorrect and corrupt statement of some evil-disposed person,' and most assuredly it is not disresjiectfvlox inconsistent to suppose the possibility of his Lordship or the wisest man liviniJ' being im- posed upon by a malicious or cunningly devised statement. Where, then, is the room for the severity of your remarks upon the language used by me ? " I am again ' amazed' at that passage in your letler in which you state that my 'conduct was carefully investigated by the Archdeacon and three others of the most respectable and experienced Presbyters of the Diocese, and that 'he Bishop's part has been merely to approve and confirm their deliberate and well-considered decision.' It conveys to me the first inti- mation that I have been tried for any oftence I supposed, as didevery one else, that the Commissioners were sent to investi- gate Mr. Green's conduct, not mine. If they were trying me I was surely treated in a less equitable way than the Rector. For he was tried on specific char^i^es — had those charges stated to him — toK; what he had to defend himself against, and more- over was allowed counsel to defend him; whilst I simply stood by, imagining myself a mere spectator in the court, not being the 'pro.wcwYor," nor as I deemed, the '■ pvosecuted.'^ 1 was certainly asked one question by Mr. Green's counsel, and my answer was somewhat favorable to the accused. "With regard 1o the '"extract" from the Commissioners' report which you have supplied me with, I have only to say that they seem to have erred -sadly erred, in the view they have taken of my conduct on the day of the investigation. In fact, I could scarcely suppose the writers of that extract to have been present,— surely they could not have been asleep when I was urged to acknowledge myself as Mr. Green's prosecutor and I emphatically refused to assume that position. Decidedly they must remember that I distinctly told them that " I knew it was part of the plan adopted from the beginning by the friends of the accused party, to thrust me forward as "the Rec- tor's prosecutor, and thereby distract the public attention from him and his frailties by throwing odium on me, — that I insist- THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 39 ed 1 was not his accuser, — I had lodged no informations with the Bishop against him, nor had I any I'eeling on«r way or the other in the result of the f^nquiry." In this assertion I was warmly supported by the Hon. Walter Dickson, (who gave the chief testimony on the occasion.) He, with manly ardour, battled to protect me from the unenviable position which he and every rational man present could see I ivas wrongfully placed in. His words were to this effect : " that he and every member ot^ the congregation were prosecutors as much as I was ; that it was quite clear from my passive conduct, and from the fact of my not having framed any regular case against Mr. Creen, for which there was ample scope, that I was not his prosecutor." Indeed I thought his arguments were con- clusive, and that the question was settled otherwise than it appears to have been. As to its being " obvious" that I was prosecutor '• from the tenor of my letter to Mr. Churchwarden Powell, I beg to state my belief that few men would come to that conclusion. That letter was not written willingly, but was forced from me after repeated applications for my reasons (pr not officiating wiih Mr. Creen at the Holy Communion, and was only intended to supply those reasons and not to serve as an indictment drawn up upon which the Rector was to be arraigned before any tribunal. As to "the previous conduct which proeluced it,'' I know of none nor can you state any but the above refusal. Surely I have a right to refuse to receive the Sacrament at the hands of an adulterer. But, after all, there was no overstatement of facts in my letter, for the accused was found guilty on the three several charges mentioned in that letter, namely "drunkenness, habits of falsehood, and his attempt to seduce Mrs. ," "I cannot suppose that you deem my language was too strong in that letter, or that the title " adulterous debauchee" was inapplicable to a man convicted or the crime which Mr. Creen was. Again, as to my " givini? publicity to the charge that impure advances had been made to another lady, while I reso- lutely withheld the name of that 'ady, is a most unjustifiable proceeding." In the name of justice what would they have me do ? Conscience would scarcely permit me to conceal the fact that a communication was made to me that he had made those "impure advances," whilst the })arty intrusting me with the secret, exacted from me the strictest pledge lobe silent as to the name of the individual upon whom the attempt was made. Would they have me violate the pledge and degrade me as a liar to a level with the wretched old criminal they were trying.^ I told them that if such evidence would be ad- milted, I was willing to swear to the facts of the case as com- ly 40 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. municated to me, but must conceal the name of the individual upon whom the attempt was made. It seems strange that the commissioners should have mentioned this case in their report, as it did not go in evidence against Mr. Creen, he being tried only for the three crimes mentioned in my letter to the Church-warden. I cannot refrain from srniling at their fears at my mentioning this matter." as creating the suspicion and even the belief of a fresh crime on the part of Mr. Creen, without affording him the means of defence.' His character was not likely to be damaged by it, as even this is not the only case in which he has made ' impure advances,' as is well known in the Parish. " In this or any other defence I may make, I do not intend any disrespect to the Bishop. Is it not the right of every man when accused of an offence, to ask the time, place and manner in which it was committed ? The Bishop (I speak with all respect) has charged me with having committed ' an unprece- dented outrage.^ That must have been the not receiving the Sacrament at Mr. Creen's hands. I could not help having been told the secret by Mr. Woodruff, which caused me not to take it, and he bound me not to tell the Bishop or any one else without his leave. There was nothing left for me to do but that which every one is at liberty to do, to decline receiving the Sacrament. Is this an outrage? And added to this I seem to be held res- ponsible for every subsequent development of guilt, and also every act of clumsy management, based in the beginning on impertinent and officious inquiry. Had I been a cunning pha- risee, I might have formally taken the Sacrament. Expediency certainly prompted it, but conscience forbade it. Notwith- standing, however, the three months' trouble this affair has caused me, had I to go through the same circumstances again, I would act as I have done. May God Almighty alwayai give me a strength to be — " 'Too fon observed in the Joseph Surfaceism which we find in the drama of fifty years ago; craft, cunning, virtuous indignation of all evil, bfended with the attempt to turn the misfortunes of o; hers — for crime is somelimes misfortune — to individual profit, antl lo chase awMy from oflice the man who certainly ineiited deprivation, for the exjiress pur|)ose of j)rofit- ing by his eiror?!. VVe are no p:trtizans of i)isIiop Strachan; but we think tlat if any one ever acted forlhc benefil of society m THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 43 he has done so in this case. Lookinojover the correspondence, his assailant, one moment, scoffing at him as a dotard, and sneering at his "senile obstinacy" — at another fawning upon the old Bishop with a meanness and obsequiousness we should expect from such a man, we heartily recognize the courage, the lisinlerestedness, and the honesty of purpose which appear in the conduct of the Bishop of Toronto, in marked contrast to the impertinence of the Curate. But we will teli the story so that our readers may judge, whether our condemnation is warranted by circumstances ; and the facts we draw from the published correspondence. Mr. Creen has been for some years — we believe between twenty and thirty — the Rector of Niagara ; and about fifteen months ago Mr. Reynolds preached a sermon, as he with cha- racteristic modesty adds — " so completely acceptable to the " congregation that they warmly solicited him to abide amongst •' them." We are not going to follow the new curate, " through " the sad spectacle of empty pews" and other pictures he draws to show the utter religious stagnation of Niagara, until we chronicle the revival of the waters of faith, flowing of course from the torrents of his eloijuence ; but it seems that towards the end of September of last year, he became acquainted with facts which were undoubtedly most discreditable to the rector, and which, if Mr. Reynolds had been a sincere and good man, he would not have paraded before the public as he has done this week. If there were anything to lead us to view his con- duct with disgust, it is the uncalled for wound he has given to public delicacy. Whatever his wrongs may have been — were he as much in the right as he has shown himself to be unde- serving of sympathy — his case might have been stated without injury to the morals of the community. Mr. Reynold's course was very clear He was Mr. Green's curate. If the tergiver- sations of his superior made his position uncomfortable, he should at once have resigned his office ; or, if his circumstances made his stipend a consideration, he should have taken the manly course nf forwarding to the Bishop the reports he had heard, and have asked his Diocesan's advice as to his future conduct. But ho had other objects in view. On one side lay honesty and good feeling, on the other the rectorship of Niagara ; and now caine the scheming which was to compass its posses- sion, lie sits down and wvites an " afi'ectionate letter" to his Rector; stating that he will be unable to assist him at the Sacrament on the followinj;; Sunday. For once in his life, Mr. Reynolds acts with good sense : he does not publish this precious epistle. The reason is very evident : it really amounted to an endeavor to supersede Mr. Creen. By Mr. Reynolds' own u THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. admission, he requested lo be appointed Deputy to the Rector ; and there is every reason to think that had Mr. Creen subscribed to this view, and quietly retired from the parish, the scandal might have been hushed up. The Hector, however, declined to accede to the terms : the Curate, therefore, on the 'folJowing Sunday, in a marked manner, took his seat .s an ordinary member of the congregation, and walked out on conclusion of the service, before the Sacraments were administered. As might have been expected, such a step attracted all the attention that was desired. The Churchwardens demanded an explanation —with affected regret it was given in language most offensive and condemnatory — the reasons were forwarded to the Bishop, and Commissioners were appointed to enquire into the charge. Mr. Creen was found guilty ; but as an old man, utterly without means, the commission mercifully allowed him to resign his gown, and a small pension was extended lo him, so that he should not be subjected to want in the winter of life. Who will blame this lenity ? Mr. Creen's sins were those which society sufficiently condemns; and they will bring their own punishment ; but to have cast him a beggar on the world would have been called for only by the most heinous of crimes. At the same time the Commissioners reported : — " That while we thus afFirm our opinion in reg-ard to the " positior of Mr. Creen, we are bound to be equally explicit in the expression of our belief that it would be inexpedient and unwise to permit the further ministrations in the Parish of Niagara of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, the assistant minister. He stands so manifestly in the light of a public prosecutor of Mr. ' Creen, as is obvious from the tenor of hisletterto Mr. Church- " warden Powell and the previous conduct which produced it " — and he has evinced, besides, so much strong feeling, want " of discretion, and violation of good taste — that not only must " his services as a minister be unacceptable to a large body of *' the people in Niagara, but there will not unnaturally be a '* suspicion of wrong and selfish motive in the course he has " pursued. Although the course that Mr. Reynolds has thought " proper to pursue may have been prompted by conscien- " tious motives, which we do not venture to dispute, yet we " cannot refrain from expressing a strong protest against " the act of any clergyman who, in the capacity of curate or " assistaut minister, lakes a prominent part in the inculpation of " his Rector, at a lime when a way was obviously open to efiect " the same end without his direct or active interference." At the commencement of the proceedings both Mr. Creen and his curate were suspended. After the sentence, doubtlesis', the latter thought his lime had come ; that the plum was ready, THE NIAGARA CHmCII CASE. 46 and he would receive his reward ; but the su pension still con- tinued. To remove the ban he visits Toronto, an(l the Bishop meted out to him the treatment which he deserved. The Bishop, as we learn, not only received the offending curate coldly, but declared he would never again employ him ; upon w^ 'ch Mr. Reynolds wrote a letter, which we take, will be hereafter considered a curiosity in evangelical literature. Mr. Reynolds was " unhappy, dejected" — he suffered from his dio- cesan's displeasure. VVould no amount of submission satisfy ? Then he complimented " that sagacity which had ever been " admired by your lordship's enemies," appealing to him as a father and kissing in short the very earth before the man whom in his appeal to the public he treats as a dotard. To this the Bishop, to our mind very properly, replied that he was not un- willing to give Mr. Reynolds an opportunity to retrieve his character in some part of the diocese remote from the scene of his late indiscretion. But such a sentence in no way suited Mr. Reynolds, He had his eye on Niagara ; and he accordingly wrote a second epistle, very long and very silly. We are not going further into this subject. The question with which we wish to deal is simply the treatment which Mr. Reynolds has received. He desires to know his fault, and that we will tell it to him in a very few words. He has been disingenuous, un- charitable, and has acted in a tnanner which every gentleman must consider discreditable. With pretended reluctance, he exposed to the public eye delinquency, from which he hoped to extract benefit, and he schemed for the facts to be the topic of every Tea table, with the expectation that he would rise on his superior's fall. It is long since we have read of so much complacent manoeuvring. Jtis the old story of — " I thank " thee that I am not as other men are, even as this publican." x\nd has all this nothing to do with public morality? If it be admitted that the inferior can rise to power by ruining his senior, there will be no end of plots and schemes. In this case there is the melancholy spectacle of an aged man, by his con- duct courting censure. On this subject we would say nomore, for we do not wish to harrow feelings, doubtless acute. But it may not always be so, and innocence will not be exempt from the consequences of an interested espionage, if encouragement be given to attacks of this character. Had Mr. Reynolds acted with the least discretion, justice wouM have been satisfied without the melancholy exposure which has led to our remarks. It must be bewailed by every true lover of religion ; for the thoughtless draw from it excuse for their misconduct, and the profligate build upon It an example they may imitate. But silence in such cases is purchased sometimes at too great a price, 4.6 THE NIAGARA CllUllClI CASE. and tht;vcn(;iable IJishop has manfully sliirvvn, that he considers that ihorc •^.re worse evils than exposure of deceit anilhy[)ocrisy. With the iaticr comes ils antidote — in the spectacle ol the dis- graced and wretched old man. But far better is it likewise to teach the rising generation that the clerical Pecksnifl" who wishes to rise by the exposure of vice, and which, provided he can gain his ends, he is willing to aid in thrusting in a corner, loses in the race. In no profession is it more necessary, than that religious teachers should be me > of large, liberal minds — generous, thoughtful, considerate, and above personal ends. It will be an ill hour for the country when we see a sharp pet- tyfogging spirit, intent on private gain, the pervading feeling of the dny. If there be such among us, it has certainly sustained no slight check at thfe hands of Bishop Strachan, in the late painful investigation. {To the Editor of the Leader.) Niagara. C.W., January 19th, 1857. Sir, — Living as I do, at a considerable distance liom Toronto, and not being a subscriber to your paper, it was late last week when, through the attention of a Toronto friend, a copy of last Wednesday's Leadir, containing your views on the Niagara Church case came to my handw. You have formed an erro- neous idea of the part which I took in the late troubles in St. Mark's Church, and given your views to the extensive circle of your readers. I believe, and confidently trust, that upon receipt of this letter you will be generous enough, by ils in- sertion, to alford me an opportunity of at least telling my story. It is a pity that you did not devote so much valuable space to a review of some of the great principles involved in the. un- happy afTair now engaging so much public attention, rather than to the inglorious purpose of throwing odium upon a poor country curate whom accident and misdeeds of others have given more notoriety to than he ever sighed for. I can bear to be abused — four months of ill-treatment have somewhat inured me to that ; but do not abuse your own mind and common honesty by accusing me of having craltily sought the rector- ship ol Niagara. The idea is simply absurd and easy of refutation. Casting my eyes on the beginning of your article in Wed- nesday's paper, I can read without much emotion your asser- tion, " that few men who have any regard for their reputation will care hereafter to seek my society." Because such opinion is based upon .gnorance of my motives in the recent Church case — and probably if you knew more of me and the said case TJIK NIAGARA ClIUllCIl CASE. 47 you would !!(>♦ fo?ir damage to your " rrpulalio.i'- by tlio in- timacy. I afrroo hcarfily with you in yonr views of the "old sayinij, ihni a bad style of man is never more offensive than when invesied wiUi Uin surplice," and the *' assumcid godli- ness," and the " Joseph Surfaceism," and so forth, but will not notice all this mneh, as its application to me at least in the present instance, is rendered null by the declanid and j)ublisli- ed sentiments of the majority of the congregation amnngst vdiom I ministered through the past year, and whose eyes were upon me in every step of the late proceedings. \» to my " sneering at the Bishop as a dotard," I d(Miy the charge, while I am ready to admit that there seems to be more grounds for the accusation of my fawning on the old Bishop." Vet, even this is a misiake, for whether the composition of my let- ter suited your tast(> or not, it was written in an honest momenl and with an lionesi motive. 1 viewed myself as a young man who in some unaceopnt.ible way had oft'ended an old man whose authority I acknowledged and respected, and sought from him, as a child would, the reconciliation of a father with- out knowing whether the weakness of the moment would ever be exposed to public gaze. But truly that letter w^as honest and as free from meanness as it was from guile. Sir, no doubt from your want of more perfect knowletlge of the case, you imagined that you detected perfect coxc^imbry and uiiboimded self-esteem when you came to the passage in the published de- tails which states that fifteen months ago 1 preached a sermon described by me "with characteristic modesty ^^^ as being "50 covip'e.'ely uccfplahle to the congregation that they warmly soli- cited me to abide am' ngst theni," — Now, sir, this passage ha{)pens not to be mine! [ am only responsible for the letters bearing my signature, the rest of the article in the Gluhe news- paper beii?g composed of selections from a mass of writing from more pens than one. I will not dwell, sir, upon your severe criticism on my conduct in giving publicity to the dis- gusting afi'air — or the " wound I have given to public delicacy.'' This is ail a mere matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours. But if it be a correct view, then many of the publish- ed details of what occurs sometim.es in the Law Courts should also be suppressed. IVo one could have more deplored the necessity of giving publicity to it than I did, but there was a necessity and I yielded to it. There seems a want cf candour in only publishing your own private views of the case, and the unfriendly extract from the report of the Commissioners, instead of giving to the public the entire correspondence, &c., as other journalists did, and letting every man judge for him- self. You say " on one side lay honesty and good feeling, on -■ ► hi. C-:l 48 THE NIAGAllA CnUIlCn CASE. the otiier the nictorsiiip ot Nia^iirfi." I^niy, sir, liow did I sacrifice "honesty and good feeling" by not taking the Sacra- ment from Mr. Creen ? And really this was all my share in the whole buiinc'^s, every suhsetjuent act and movement in the matter was done by others and beyond my control — and iiow could I ex|)«!Ct to gel the reclor.shi|) by not taking it ? You say that the reason I did not publish the " alVectionate letter" to the Kector. " is very evident ; it really amounted to an endea- vour to supersede Mr. Creen," and you furUier state that by my own admission I requested in that' letter " to be; appointed Deputy to the Hector '' Why, sir, was I not as his curate, his Deputy already) Of coiirse it was his office as Rector to con- secrate the (dements at the Communion Table — and present the bread to the communicants, and I only asked to be his "deputy" in that office on that particular day. In fact, to end the matter, th ' word ''deputy" was simply used as the syn- onyme for substitute. Just as a Lieutenant doing a Captain's peculiar duty on a pariicular occasion, would style and consi- der himself the Captain's deputy in the act of duty. Mr. Grasett, with whom, as the Bishop's Secretary, I sup- pose the original letter lies, will, I feel convinced, admit that it amounts to no more — and had only reference to tlie 7th day of l5epte ruber. You say, "in a marked manner, I took my seat as an ordinary member of the congregation" on that occa- sion. You are the first to charge me with this — you were not there to see, and I simply deny that there was anything //«arfe6?d in my maimer, and so will any individual member of the con- gregation of St. Mark's. Moreover, I have more than once "taken my seat as an ordinary member of the congregation while Mr Creen officiated." But the chief error which you have fallen into is that ol con- ceiving that I sought the rectorship of Niagara, " the plum," as you call it; (and here let me remark that it is no plum, nor are there many plums fo'r the poor clergymen of this coun- try — we aremiserabjV half-paid men.) [sic.) The proofs I have to offer in refutation i >l the asserlion that I sought this " plum," are as follows : — let. Even the Commissioners, in their harsh report, do not charge me with it, but absolutely admit their belief that I acted from conscii ntioxts motives. They merely protest against an inferior taking action against a superior. 2nd. The people in their memorial to the Bishop make no such request — and abs(»lutely protest^ in their resolutions at a public vestry meeting, against any such idea being entertained by them or nje. 3rd. The gentlemen who, as a deputation, waited upon the TIM'; NIAGARA CIIUIICII CA8E. 40 n Bisliop to prcsnit thai memorial, boldly denifd it when it was hinted at in his I^orilship's answer. 4lh. I appi-al to the Hon. Wnlter Dickson (I am proud of having such respeclabU; aiid unim|ieacliuble evidence,) who at the second vestry meeting declared his conviction " that I was a most ill-used man. That as to say I had any notion of ob- taining the rectorship of Niagara, it was cruel and absurd, and he knew il to be false. That from the very beginning — bclbre netion was taken in the aH'air, when ihi» possibility of my being left in the Parish, should Mr. Creen be removed, was spoken of," I, to use his own language, " lanrrhcd thf thing to scorn.^' Sir, I would deserve to be forever bran 'ed with the title of fool, if I, who at the time the unpleasant occurrence took place was only nin^ months in the Diocese, and only two years in {\vc Ministry, dared to aspire to fi Rectorship! Sir, I fear 1 have trespassed at great length upon you, but as an independent journalist, and, I pri sume, an honorable man, you will not be unwilling to allbrd me an opportunity of setting you and your readers right upon a point whicfi is im- portant to me. You have given strange strokes in the portrait you have drawn cf me — but this 1 forgive, all men are liable to err, and journalists must have freedom of speech ; but I rather think should we meet, at any time, you will laugh at having called me a " clerical Peeksnirt," as there is nothing puritanical, saintly or Perksnil/ish in my appearance, manner or sentiments, even if I be "a !)ad style tate ; but late lacts show, that it remains "hideous aiid hoary" in the Church — "the abomination of desolation sitting in the Holy |»lace." But I venture to assert the late tyrannical proceedings of the Bishop of Toronto will rouse such a spirit of indignation among the intelligent and independent laity ai the extravagant preroga- tives claimed by him, as will lead to a thorough and speedy reform being applied to the rotten and arbitrary system now existing as the government of the Church of England in this Province. My present object, however, is not to discuss church govern- ment, but to protest against the very unfair and ungenerous THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 53 manner in which the Rev. Mr. Reynolds has been treated by that brace of apologists and defenders of prelatic despotism — the Colonist and Leader newspapers. Their publication of whatever they thought damaging to Mr. Reynolds and their careful exclusion of the proceedings and resolutions of the congregation in the matter, Avho might reasonably be sup- posed to have been best qualified to form a fair and just opinion of Mr. Reynolds' conduct, 's just what we might expect from journnls unprincipled enough to advocate the arbitrary power of IJishops. As lor the Cdonist^ it has always been found arrayed on the side of high prerogatives, both in Church and State, and its tractarian bias has long been observed by mem- bers of the Church of England. It was natural it should aid an arbitrary Bishop with his £5,000 a year, and a secretary with his £2,000 a ye::r, to set their feet upon and crush a poor curate who only devoted himself day and night to the work of the Gospel for a pittance of s^SOO per annum — a ploughman's wages — but who was content to do so, because it was God's work, and he felt he had a call to preach salvation and admi- nister the consolations of Christianity to his fellow beings — who was content to be that humble curate, notwithstanding he was possessed of abilities and eloquence which, in another profession, might make him a wealthy man in a few years. Such is the man whom the Bishop of Toronto has ignoniiniously driven out of the Church, and Vv'hom the Colonid and Leader applaud for so doing ! The Leader^ who evidently knows nothing of the case lurther then he has been instructed, makes the calumnious chaige against Mr. Reynolds of having had designs upon the Rectory of Niagara. Sir, it is painful to the members of the congregation, who know every little of the affair, to hear such a charge. There is not one word of truth in it, and although the Le/cler quotes th*^ coiiimissio:;ers' leport, it only jiroves that the one party is as expert at a lying Insinuation as the other. * The faot is capable of the clearest proof thiit, before the divul- gation against the Rev. Mr. Creen, Mr. Reynolds knew and expressed to certain gentlemen whose counsel he sought, that the step he was taking involved certain ruin o himself as a clergyman under the control of (hf Bishop of Toronto. He ■ knew the character of the Bishop and the nature of hisari>itrary government too well, to entertain the slis^hfest expeetation of succeeding to the Rectory, or in any way profiting in a worldly paint of view by the course he took. At the vestry meeting held oil the llth December, this charge was clearly and posi- tively refuted by the Hon. W, H. Dickson, one of the gentlemen whose opinion Mr Reynolds sought, Mo whom he distinctly 1 I 54 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CA^jB. Staled thai the step he was taking would certainly lead to his own immediate dismissal from Niagara, whether the charges against the Rector were proved or not. The truth is the very contrary to the charge iii the Leader. The Rev. Mr. Reynolds instead o*^ expecting reward and promotion, knew, that he would brmg the vengeance of the Bishop upon himself for acting as his duty and conscience dictated. He knew he was sure to be sacrificed ; and tliis, Sir, wiih us, enhances his merit ; for few men will deliberately sacrifice their interests to principle, as we know Mr. Reynolds did, on that occasion. But sir, this thick dust kicked up by the Bishop's journals over the personal conduct of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, is not without its object. The Bishop and his defenders would be very glad to divert the attention of the Church from the real (Questions involved in the proceedings, to the comparatively trifling and personal one involved in Mr. Reynolds' conduct. But they will not be permitted to do so. Th^ Bishop has raised an issue with the laity on the point of authority, and it will be driven to a decision. The Leader may abuse the Rev. Mr. Reynolds to its heart's content, and butter over the Bishop's inquisitors to their own hearts' content too ; but neither he nor they, dare enter upon a defence of their real motives for punish- ing Mr. Reynolds, or the equally ticklish ground of dispute between the Bishop and the congregation of St. Mark's who, we venture to say, represent in this affair, the sentiments of nine tenths of the laity of the Church in this Province. The Bishop was too cunning to allege other than such general charges of ' want of judgment,'' " indiscretion,"' and " insubor- dination,'' against Mr. Reynolds. Had Mr. R. been vulnerable on any real offence, he would doubtless have had the precious privilege of being tried by the Bishop's private tribunal ; but, sir, his real offence in the Episcopal eye, wasone for whi6hthe Bishop durst not put him on his trial, knowing full weil that to do so would raise a general rebellion in the Church. The Rev. Mr. Reynolds' crime consists in his being a Low or Evangelical Churchman, who has spoken with power, eloquence, and bold- ness, against the Popish principles which the Bishop and a number oi his Tractarian clergy nurse and foster as the very core of Christianity. The views of his party, respecting the Eucharist, are precisely those for which Archdeacon Dennison has lately been removed from his office by the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and this idea r< specting the authority ><" what they call ' the Church," meaning the liishop and his -lergy apostolically ordained, i^akes it a crime in any individual to exercise his private judg.nent, and consult his conscience as to whether he can refuse Jhe sacrament from a clergyman whom ppifl THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 55 he knows to be a bad man. The Bishop and his Tractarian commissioners hold that no man has a right to refuse the sacra- ment, or other ordinances of "the Church," at the hands of a successor of the Apostles^ were that minister known to be the vilest of men. He has had the Bishop's hands put upon him, and to refuse his ministrations, is to put contempt upon the Bishop who ordained him. Sir, the Reverend Mr. Reynolds consulted his own conscience, and his own interpretation of the doctrines of the Church of England, and refused to take the sacrament from, or administer it to, or in connection with the Rev. Mr. Green, and this is his unpardonable offence. This is the " unprecedented outrage" whi'^h the Bishop thundered against him, before the charge against Mr. (Jreen had ever been transmitted to Toronto. It was this exhibition of Evangelical principle that sealed the doom of Mr. Reynolds from the first. But the Bishop dare not try him on this his real offence. He knows too well that the people would crush his authority at once, did he openly attempt to punish a clergyman for upholding the true Protestant doctrines of the Church of England. Hence all the sham charges and indefinite crimes of " indiscretion," " want of judgment," &c., that have been alleged against Mr. Reynolds ; and hence they cling with so much pertinacity to the mons- trous and utterly false accusation, that he had a design upon the rectory of Niagara. Mr". Reynolds, Sir, trod upon the gouty toe of the would-be Anglican Pope, by showing his disbelief in the immaculate powers of his ordination. Hence the bitter odium theologicum with which he has been persecuted. It was for this, that, like an Oriental Sultan, the Bishop sent his mutes in the shape of an Archdeacon, two rural deans and a rector — with whom " to hear is to obey," — to bnw-string our poor evangelical curate in the dark ! while such is the force of the tyrannical system of our church government, that hardly a clergyman in the Province dare say a word in condemnation of such an act of despotism ; knowing that their position m the church, and their daily bread are dependent on the sole will and pleasure of one arbitrary old man in Toronto. The Bishop had no diffi- culty in finding right material for his commissioners. They are an old breed in the church. Chaucer drew their likeness to a hair five centuries ago, in the character of the " Sumpnour," in the Frere's tale .■>•> " A Suinpuour is a runner up and down, With maundement z for foruicacioun," ****** •' He had a Suinpnour redy to IiIb hond, 66 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. A slyer boy was none in Engelond ; B'liU prively he bad liis ejpiuile. Tliat tanghtc him wher be mi<;bte avayle ; This Siiiiipnoiir which ibit was as ful of jangles, ful of vcnym b-Mi the very angles." Sir, was it not an edify inji spectacle to see a quartette of Sumpnours join in croaking a connmination and whispering secret accusations into tlie ear of the Bishop against a brother clergyman, whom they never oncv asked what he had to say to the charges they made against him ? Sir, though I cannot suffi- ciently express my indignation at the despotic and lordly atti- tude of the Bishop, yet 1 think every sensible man will concur in holding the conduct of the commissioners as infinitely meaner and more disgusting. The one was the action of a tyrant, the other the Covvardly cruelty of a slave! As I have said, the refusal to take or administer the communion under the circum- stances, was the real crime of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds in the eye of the Bishop and commissioners ; but, Sir, I venture to assert, that it was an offence which the Protestant laity of the Church will applaud as a noble Christian virtue and a brave stand ag tinst a Prelatic despotism and Puseyite heresy. But, Sir, the question at issue between the Bishop and the congregation of St. Mark's rests on other grounds. It is that the Bishop has assumed the right to degrade a minister of the Church, and turn him out of his charge, and neither allow him to preach in this diocese, nor give him his letters demissory to go elsewhere : thus, as far as the Bishop is concerned, leaving him to starve and die in the next ditch, and all without the semblance of a trial, but merely on his own arbitrary decree ; thus assum- ing a right which rrduces every clergyman in his diocese to the position of a slave, and denying the right of a congregation to make a remonstrance even between the Episcopal " Lion" and the victim he seeks to devour. Sir, this is not the Church of England we have in this Province, bat a false and libellous representation of it. The Church of England is a church of law and order, not of arbitrary power ; but the Bishop of Toronto in his sole person, claims and exercises a greater authority than all the Archbishops, Bishops, and Eccle- siastical Cou its of England jnit together. He has grasped and claims a right to the entire patronage of the Church in Canada ; and thi.s, with the absolute power of dii^missal and removal, which he has also usurped, makes him absolute Czar of the Church in Canada. This extraordinary assumption of authority by the Bishop of Toronto, I need not repeat, is at variance with all the principles and laws of the Church of England. These claims of his have \ i :'t THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 57 e 3 e only to be presented clearly before the people to make ihem turn with abhorrence from such a system of irresponsible des- potism. For one, the congregation of St. Mark's spum with inditrnation the idea of being slaves in the Church when they know they are freemen. They respect a bishop in his lawful pi a 3e of overseer ; but not as lord and master. They regard the Church as Chr' s heritage, not the private domain of a man in lawn-sleev.t«, whose only estimation of it seems to be its value, as offering the means of quartering " my clergy" upon " important Parishes," without the slightest regard to the wishes or opinions of the congregations. An instance of this occurs just now. The Rev. Dr. McMurray, who is, I hear, a good and worthy man, and against whom no objection would perhaps, have been raised had the congregation been consulted in thfe appointment, was sent here without the knowledge or concurrence of a single member of the Church ! The arbitrary manner of his appointment will long be ah obstacle in the way of his.usefulness in Niagara, and such will be the case every- where, if this tyrannical policy be persisted in. Sir, this course pursued by the Bishop will lead, I trust, to a general discussion of the important questions of church patronage and church government in this diocese. The laity will never allow all appointments /Jcrma«m% to become the private property of the Bishop ; neither can the patronage be vested, like advowsons in individuals as in Englanc'. Tho power of nominating the clergy to charges must in som( shape or other revert to the people who support them. A Chun-.h of Kngland reformed on right principles would become one 3fthe most popular and influential bodies in the land. Until it s so reformed, it will dwindle to comparative insignificance. Liberal, conscientious and evan- gelical men will shun its ninistry so long as vice and intrigue are petted and rewarded, and the faithful discharge of duty punished by the legal heads of the Church. I hope, however, that the steps taken by the congregation of St. Mark's will have set a useful example to other parishes, and that a spirit and determination to have those crying evils reformed will speak out fearlessly at the next Synod. Tiiat we may ere long see the Chiirch of England shake off the iner.bus of tractarianism which is now cherished by her leading clergy in this diocese, and assume her true complexion of a Protestant and liberal denominatioii, zealous in the cause of our common Christianity, is the hearty desire of Yo.irs truly, A Member of St. Mark's Church, Niagara. January 18, 1857. 58 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASK. From the. Colonist, January 21, 1857. Some circumstances connected with this case, not generally known to the public, have comn to our knowledge, which ren- der the "cruel indiscretion of Mr. Reynolds even still more apparent than in his own narrative of the Globe. His letter to Mr, Powell, it may be remembered, denounced Mr Creen in the coarsest and most violent manner, as an " adulterous debauchee," &c. Now, we entirely concur in the justice and wisdom oii" the sentence pronounced against :Vlr. C. Still we do assert that the unhappy delinquent was not all the infamous plotting, licentious villain that Mr. R. and the Globe represent him to be. Mr. C. has unhappily given way at times to the abuse of spirituous liquors, and being of a nervous excitable temperament, a very small quantity of liquor readers him in- capable of rational conduct. It was while he was in this state of mental aberration that he wrote the letlf r which ulti- mately caused his suspension. I* will scarcely be believed, from the reading of Mr. R's narrative, that this letter was writ- ten nearly one year .^nd three quarters since. Of course the recipient of the letter- made the matter known, and the Church wardens were immediately made acquainted with it. Mr. Creen at first denied ail knowledge of the matter, and we would fain believe that he did so bona fide. The Church wardens convinced him that he did writo by showing him his own letter, but knowing his weakness of mind when under the inlluence of liquor, they took a merciful view cf the case and determined not to make the matter public. We understand that they warned him most solemnly of the fearful danger into which he had fallen from his intemperance, and cautioned him very strongly as to his fuiu.j conduct. Some may bla\ne them for this forbearance, but if they erred, it was on the side of mercy. Months rolled on, and Mr. Creen seems to have acted with propriety, for even Mr. Reynolds, who, through his position was brought into frequent contact with him for several months, defends him as being a "good man," a few days before his letter to Mr. Powell, was written. At length the matter became known to Mr. R. A grand opportunity was offered to get rid of the obstacle that intervened between him and the object of his ambition, and he adopted the course best calculated to cause the greatest scandal and excitement against Mr. C, and place himself before the congregation as a martyr to the sanctity of his principles. To do this, the dictates of common sense, gentlemiinly prin- ciples and christian propriety, if he possess such commodities, THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE, 59 had all to be trampled upon, together with that article ol his own • church (the 26tli we believe) which he had .solemnly sworn to receiv at his ordination. Of this latter I'eat we must suppose him to have been ignorant, ibr he actually takes credit to him- self for tenderness of conscience in having done so. Fault is lound with^the liifhop for undue leniency to Mr. Creen in permitting him to retain a pension of £100 per annum. The man must have a very perverted judgment who knowing all the circumstances of the case can think so. It would be cruel indeed, al\er 30 years' hibor to fling the old man and his family upon the cold charity ot' the world. Had the Bishop sought to do so, and Mr. Creen had in consequence refused to give up his Rectory, the whole matter would have had togoto the English Ecclesiastical Courts at an enormous expense, where several years probably would have elapsed before a de- cision was corie to, and in the meantime the parish of Niagara would have gone to utter n n. We have not yet in this Province, through the delny ^f the Home Government in giving assent to the Bill passed last Session, a Synod legally constituted to take cognizance of clerical delinquency. The Bishop, we consider, and all straight-forward men dispos- ed to jule. All / asked from tlie Bishop was a fair hearing, with a view to a reconciliation, and the removal of censure, and aiterwards Letters Tt;stimonial. All the /)eo/?/<; asked was the said fair hearing, to which they added a desire that I should be permitted to fulfil my engagement in Niagara, which did not really terminate till the first day of January. As to rhy heading a new srrf it is a mistake. I have, indeed, been solicited by a majority of the congregation, to act as an independent minister of the Church cf Kngl.md, and have de- clined. With regard to Dr. McMurray, I beg to stale ihat 1 did not desire to thr )W any impediment in his way, but sincerely hope and prtiy that he may be a useful instrument in tiic hands of God, for (he salvation of souls. Fully persuaded that as a public guardian of truth and fair play, you will give inserton to this communication in your valuable journal. I am. Sir, Your v,^ry obed't servant, HENRY DUNBAR REYNOLDS. To the Editor of th- Globe. Lrtter from the Rev. J. Torrance. Sir, — In the issue of the Colonist of the :21st instant, there seoms an unfair desire to prejudice the public mind in its statement of the ^'Niagara Church Case," and although not desirous of impugning the testimony of those vvho.se information TIIK NIAGARA CinHlCll CASE. 61 it '' hnpptMU'd to know." I have been in a position \o know all the cimunHlaiiceM, from the period that the Rev. Mr. Reynolds addres>ed his note ol the Clh September last to the Rev. Mr. Creen, and I feel it to be a dnty to stale, for the be- nefit of the pnblie, circmmtanccs only known to mijself niihe time, and whieh, in justiee to truth and the parties more immediately interested, onght to be known, in order to enable a (liseerning public to jndge of the merits of the case; and I can siay, never was a man more nnwiliingly thrust into a pro- minent position, and made the creature of u train of unhappy circl1m^»tanees, which no human foresight could anticipate, than Mr. Reynolds. On the above named day, Mr. Reynolds came home about 4 p. m., and mentioned that eireumstanees had come to his knowledge of so dreadful a character respecting Mr. Creen, that he had determined to leave th- Church on the following day before the administration of the Sacrament, as he could not conscientiously recuive it at his hands, in reply, I said if such was his determination, he had better notify Mr. Creen before that period, as from the fact of his being a nervous man, something unpleasant might arise from the comrnunic.ition at the time, and, in order to prevent scandal to the Church, 1o avoid anything unseemly during the eehbration of diviiie ser- vice. Mr. Reynolds then inquired what I would recommend him to do.'' To which I said, it was a delicate matter to ad- vise another upon, but I thouglii it bitter that he should com- municate with Mr. Creen by letier. Hi then said he would write a note to him, and advise him lo stay away and permit him, Mr. R.. to takef his place on that occasion. And if Mr. Creen had been a wi-e man he would have done so, as I verily believe, Mr. Reynolds did not desire to d-' him an injury, but in the following week to place him in possessio. of the tacts that had come to his knowledge, and permit him lo use his own discretion afterwards. Again, Mr. Creen, if possessed of ordinary sagacity, and not wishing to comply with Mr. Reynolds suggestion, might have excliang(!d duties for the occasion with the Rev. Mr. Phillips, who officiates every Sunday at a station about 7 miles distant from Niagara. Or, if he had chosen, might have asked the Rev. J G. Mackenzie or myself to have officiated in his stead, if unwilling to permit Mr. Reynolds to act as his deputy on the occasion. On Smiday morning Mr. Reynolds hesitated about going lo Church, but knowing as I did that a note had been sent to Mr. Creen, to which an answer had been reques- ted by 10 o'clock a. m., and, that failing to come, I advised Mr. Reynolds to go lo Church, lest in the absence of the Rector r 141 M If I i m ■11 62 TIIK NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. there would bo no service, which would obviously cieate great confusion to the congrcgntion. Two or three days after, when in company with Mr. Reynolds, in the town of Niagara,'^Mr. Powell, Churchwarden, met us, and desired to speak to him, and during the interview which at a distance seemed to be animated, I learned upon Mr. Reynolds rejoining me, that Mr. Powell had demanded authoritatively his reason for not taking his share of the services on the previous Sunday, the right of which demand was denied on the part of Mr. Reynolds, who lold the Churchwarden it he persisted in his demand, and wrote to liim officially, requiring an explanation, he would answer him in the same capacity. And I know that it was with the greattst reluctance Mr. Reynolds wrote his letter on the 17th September last, never supposing Mr. Powell, who professed to be a warm friend of Mr. Crecn's, would expose him, and bring all the trouble upon the parish which has followed. Some men in authority delight to exercise the influence hey possess, am\ it was that pertina- cious officiousness that so >.i nplicated matters otherwise simple of arrangement, which has raised so much chur(;h scandal throughout the country. It is not generally known that it was at Mr. Powell's sugges- tion that the Bishop of Toronto suspended Mr. Reynolds, and there is every reason to suppose that it was this suggestion that first raised any suspicion in the Bishop's miiul in reference to the rectitude of Mr. Reynolds' conduct. Whereas had his Lordship had access through an unbiassed channel to facts as they stood, and which I can bear testimony to with many others in the parish, he would have seen that there was neither craft nor guile on the part of the late assistant minister in the dis- charge of his sacred duties. The im worthy object of aspiring to \he Rectory of Nia'^ara is too palpable an ahsurditij to require contradiction. And although Mr. Reynolds was emj)loyeil and paid by the people, with the consent of the late Rector, he and his friends knew too well that in the event of a vacancy, the Bishop was the sole nominator to the Rectory. I am in no way surprised at the affection manifested on the part of the great majority of St. Mark's Church to Mr. Reynolds, for during the p iriod he ministered to them in holy things,, he was the hohored instrument of raisinir the Church and true religion to a position in the hearts of the people that it had never occupied before. It seems unfair on the part of one portion of the Press in their attempt to write down the other, to make Mr. Reynolds the scapegoat, and keep harping upon the " ohject of his ambition^^^ in the face of such undeniable and incontrovertible evidence, I THE NIAOAllA CHUUCM CASK. 03 lor las )n 5ir > J as to Ihe truth of his statements. So liltlc tlul he desire to remain in Miagara, that upon my proposing to leave the neighborhood last autumn, he gave notice to the vestry of his desire to leave on the 1st of October last, little dreaining he was likely to be drawn into the position he has been lorced to occupy since. In spite of all the Colonist can say, Mr Reynolds' first letter to the Bishop is not " a sufficient example of coaxing" as far as seeking to remain in Niagara is concerned. Any one who reads it can see, that all that letter asks is a " fair hearing." And how can Mr. Reynolds, in sending the correspondance to the Globe, show his willingness to '* coerce," for the period of coercion was past, as all negotiotion and connexion with the Bishop was broken off when the publication took place. As 1o the Colonist saying, " we happened to know also, that the publication of that correspondance was held in terrorein over the authorities, as a means of inducing his Lordship to allow Mr. Reynolds to remain in Niagar'.." I must give this wild assertion the direct charge of beii ^ false. As I "happen to know" the little mole hill from v 'lich this calumny takes its rise. 1 and another gentleman (ailed on Mr. Graselt, with a view of stating the real fe >i . os of the ciii.e, and to prevent a schism in the Church, wl m i mentioned my fear that in the event of Mr. Reynolds not being admitted again to do duty in the parish, he would be disposed to publish the whole pro- ceedings of the case, but this had no reference to the Rec.tory. In reviewing the proceedings of the case, I cannot see what other course Mr. Reynolds could have pursued than he has done. He is ardent and zealous, and, as he says, " Entered the ministry, hoping to enjoy peace and good will, and to do good, instead of which he had met with kicks and cuffs." And for what ? Discharging his duties faithfully and conscientiously. This much I will say, If 1 had the misiortune to be placed as he was in this ris- , I would unhesitatingly pursue the same course which he has done. Faithful a son as I considered myself of the Church, and respect as I have for her authorities because ihro'.gh an error o^judg-ment on their part, I would not willingly permit myself to be sacrificed on a matter of "etiquette," when borne out by truth and equity. I fear the Bishop has been ill-advised — the Commission has exercised an influence on his Lordship ill becoming their high position. They were sent to Niagara to investigate Mr. Green's conduct, the evidence of which should have been presented to the Bishop, to allow him to decide upon it, and not tocondem a man whom they were not sent to try. Differing as I do from Mr. Reynolds on many subjects in if 64 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. Church matters, in bringing this statement before the public, I have bfMi influenced by a desire to bear testimony to the truth, and lioi to permit a brother clergyman to be sacrificed to clamour or prejudice. 1 am your obedient servant. J. TORRANCE. January 24, 1857. From the Christian Guardian. A NEW PHASE IN THE ADMINISTRATION ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. OF Toronto, Janwa/1/ 28, 1857. We have hitherto refrained from noticing the Niagara Church case, simply becaus'i we did not wish to be the medium of giving wider publicity to an occurrence which is to be regretted by every friend of morality and religion, in whatever branch of the Protestant Church it may take place ; nor should we refer to the matter now, but for one feature in the manner of dealing with the case, which in our jugdment merits the reprobation of all who regard the purity of religion, and equity in the admi- nistration of ecclesiastical law. We refer to the unrighteous severity of the censure which Bishop Strachan and his Com- missioners have infiioted upon the Rev. Mr. Reynolds. The only apparent offence which Mr. Reynolds has coinniitted, so far as vv< can rightly judge of his connection with the unhappy affair, was, that in consequence of the relation he sustained to the Episcopal Church in Niagara, he became the unwilling instrument of bringing to light the gross misconduct of the chief minister ; and for this he is in effect deposed from the ministry and its emoluments, while the guilty party, is merely relieved from the incumbency of the Church and allowed to retire upon a pension for life. We have long been aware that in criminal juris- prudence; the receiver of stolen goods is regarded as equal in criminality with the thief ; but if is quite a novel phase in dealing with offences, to inflict upon an informer a more severe punish- ment than upon the person whose guilt has been established by the testimony adduced, as the result of the information given ; and we have no hesitation in declaring our conviction, that the treatment of Mr. Reynolds is unparalleled in the history of either civil or ecclesiastical proceedings. Had the charges of moral delinquency which the information involved, even failed of s'^fficient proof, Mr. Reynolds might even then. have been regarded in the charitable light of a conscientious though mis- taken informer. But when there was no lack of evidence in support of the alleged misconduct of the minister against whom THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 65 SO ish- by |en ; the of Is of lied the information was given, the treatment of Mr. R. by the Bishop is at variance with all the principles of equity, as well as subversive of christian integrity ; for who after this, under the administration of such a Bishop, will dare to give informa- tion of misconduct, however unchristian ; unless he does it under the impulses of a martyr-spirit in the discharge of duty ; and in view of suffering a more severe punishment than that to which even the commission of the crime he exposes would subject him ? In justification of the Bishop's treatment of Mr. Reynolds, it is alleged that he actod with " cruel indiscretion,^^ in bringing to light the misconduct of the minister, and that he was insti- gated to the course he pursued by the hope of being promoted to the rectory of Niagara. Now we have been somewhat attentive to the facts which have been made public in connec- tion with this unhappy affair ; and we cannot as yet see upon what ground Mr. R. is liable to the charge of indiscretion. His position w IS a most trying one, and it would not have been surprising if he had committed a greater indiscretion than is alleged against him, but with whatever amount he may be charged, it was the result of what we cannot but regard as too strong a reluctance on his part, to be the instrument of institut- ing proceedings against the minister of the church. In no other respect can we regard Mr. R 's conduct as marked with even impropriety. If he erred, it was on the side of forbearance. And as to the charge that he aspired to promotion, and endea- voured to secure it by another's fall, it is a perfectly gratuitous surmise, and disproved by the most reliable testimony. We cannot however, view the conduct of Bishop Strachan in so favourable a light. To us the obvious cause of his treatment ot Mr. Reynolds, was by way of retaliation for his temerity in daring to bring an accusation against the minister at all, and it may be that the bishop's ire was somewhat increased from the circumstance th.:t, the accused was a companion in his transition from Presbytenanism to Episcopacy. The charge preferred was unfortunately too clearly proved to admit of doubt, and the crime was of such a nature as to compel the Bishop, with all his irresponsible power, to inflict some degree of punishment upon the accused, and then as the only mode of showing his displeasure in being shut up to this course, he wreaks his ven- geance upon the man who was so unfortunate as to be placed in circumstances which compelled him either to violate his conscience by fellowship with sin, and connivance at its com- mission, or else in some way to declare his regard fortht purity of the church and its ministry. He chose the latter, and this appears to us, " the head and front of his offending." It may 66 THE NIAGARA CIirRCH CASE. be uncharitable in us to express the opinion ; but still we cannot but believe from the aspect which the dealing with this case presents, that had Mr. Reynolds remained silent, or given to the Bishop the information in a more private way, so as not to have imposed upon him the necessity, from the force of public opinion, to institute ecclesiastical proceedings, in all probability Mr. R. might still have retained the favour of his diocesan, so far as the semi-Romish dogmas of Bishop Slrachan incline him to look with a gracious eye upon those vvho maintain the doctrines of evangelical Protestantism. The absurd plea of the scandal caused by this affair need not be discussed. The scandal was in the tolerance of such gross misconduct in a minister long after it was known, and not in the manner it has been farced upon ecclesiastical notice ; and the scandal has not been a little increased by the Bishop's treatment of Mr. Reynolds, since he has visited a conscientious regard for the purity of the ministry, with a severer censure than even the grossest violation of morality by a minister himself. We notice this matter at this length because it involves a principle in which all the churches of our Protestant Christianity are con- cerned ; and because such high-handed despotism and injustice ought to be rebuked in whatever church it occurs, and by whomsoever committed. We have no other apology to offer for what seems to some an uncalled for meddling with the matters of another church. One of the strangest things connected with th:s affair, is the evidence which the Mirror finds in it in favour of the purity of the French and Irish RomfVMist clergy of Quebec. Suspicious indeed must be the character of a clergy who need such a des- perately strained inference as a testimony to their purity. That paper thinks that Mr. R. owes much of the conscientious zeal he has manifested in this case, " to the Catholic atmosphere and the example of the Catholic clergy of Quebec." The Mhror may draw what consoling inferences it pleases from this affair; the party that journal serves needs all it can get ; — but we think it is rather imprudent toexpres such sentiments, since the utterance of them is very likely to provoke the asser- tion of a well known fact, that any atmosphere becomes infected with moral pollution in proportion as the influences of Popery prevail, free from the conservative principles of a pure Chris- tianity. Ftomihe Gospel Tribune, January, 1857. It is well known that as far back as authentic history extends, men have always existed, so thoroughly debased in moral THE NIAGARA CHTJKCH CASE. 67 )here The from lents, isser- ;ted )pery ihris- mds, joral character, as not to shrink from " stealing the livery of heaven to serve the devil in." And when such oily serpents, adepts in dissimulation, succeed in palming themselves off as being really angels of light, why should it be thought a marvellous feat in them to maintain the deception for years ; SO FAR, at least, as to prevent the POSITIVE detection of their impious fraud ? — Why should any individual, community, or Church, view it as any special disgrace to be grossly imposed upon by the cunning craftiness of such artful, designing knaves? Should such an adroit impostor, while shining in all the graceful attire of an angel actually succeed in planting himself firmly in the church, as a true minister of God, what sensible man would ever charge the sacrilegious villainy to the church as a crime, or offence even ? None — certainly none — provided the church flings the reprobate from its bosom, the moment his true character is discovered, and manifests true gratitude to all who aided in detecting the culprit. But, if instead of this, the church shows every possible lenity to the wicked impostor, and exercises its ingenuity in discovering faults in the method of his detection ; and actually finds them where the common sense of mankind sees nothing amiss, — and thus finding them makes them the cause of placing the detectors of the impostor under its heavy displeasure, — to the extent of imposing upon them crushing and disgraceful disabilities, pains, and penalties ; then, indeed, the church — thus proving its complicity with the most atrocious of vagabonds — is justly frowned upon and shunned by every upright, honest man. And it would tend greatly to the improvement of every such church, could it be made to feel the weight of public indignation. To this end attention is called to the treatment which iii?: Rev the God- fearing Mr. Reynolds has received at the hands of the Anglican Bishop of Toronto, his secretary, and the Niagara Commissioners. Most mercilessly has Mr. Reynolds been assailed,-they have im- pugned his motives — maligned his character — and suspended his ministry in Niagara, while measures are coolly taken to banish him from the town ! But whende this severity ? '' Why, what evil has he done ? " An outraged people, deprived of his valuable ministry, importune for an answer ; and thes learn that he has heen found guilty — without a trial — of having committed the enormous crime of violating Episcopal etiquette ! That he had not used ceremouy enough, nor prudence enough, in tearing the mask of ministerial sanctity from a vile seducer ! That he had somewhat rashly exposed his gross depravity ! That he had rudely exhibited his revolting hypocrisy, making it manifest to all that he was not a minister of God, but a corrupt, polluted, drunken debauchee. Alas! that for doing 68 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. these things, in a style however non- Episcopal, the Rev. Mr. Reynolds should fall under the displeasure of the Magnates of his church ! Who could have anticipated such a result? Who is so dull as not to perceive the analogy that exists between the conduct of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds in the Niagara retribution and that of Phineas in the matter of Baal-Peor? Making every allowance that can be demanded for altered times and circumstances, who can say that the zeal of Mr. Reynolds, in defence of morg.1 purity, impelled him further than the son of Eleazar was carried, in arresting the adulterous Zimri in his career cf pollution ? If the conduct of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, towards a brutal wolf found in the sheepfold, was rude, rash, and unceremonious, and in violation ol the nice distinctions of etiquette, what must be said of the course of Phineas ? Phineas seems to have been profoundly ignorant that the wicked, lawless^ adulterous Zimri, — Prince though he was, — had any claim on his respect, courtesy, politene&s, or conside- ration in any form. Nor does he seem to have been aware that the Israelitish Church could be scandalized by the imme- diate proclamation of his gross criminality. He seems to have acted as though he had the assurance of heaven, that the vile impurity of the Prince, and not the thorough exposure of it, was culpable. In short, his conduct absolutely and most thoroughly ignores every principle on which the Rev. Mr. Reynolds is censured, condemned, silenced, and disgraced by the Lord Bishop of Toronto. How crusliing is the rebuke administered to his Lordship by the single fact that Moses did not censure Phineas for pointing out the lewdness of Zimri before he revealed the matter to him ! And how overwhelming the condemnation of Bishop, Commission^ and Secretary^ embodied in the following proclamation of ih" Kings, the God oi spotless purity and holiness, touching the case : — " And the Lord spake unto Moses, sayinir, " Phineas the son of Elear.^r, the sod of Aaron tlie priest, hath turned my wrath away Irom the children of Israel, (while he was zealous for my sake among them,) that I consumed not the children cf Israel in my jealousy. "Wherefore say. Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace : " x\nd he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the cove- nant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, ?ind made an atonement for the children of Israel " Let the Rev. Mr. Reynolds lift up his head and rejoice. Well may he exclaim, let Bishop, Secretary and Commission, condemn mr if they will. The Lord is on my side — I will not fear what man can do unto me. And ifprmb, lostto all sense !•; THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 69 jove- |is for I." oice. sion, ll not lense of moral decency, join the iniquitous cry against the man, who in Niagara tore the fangs from the serpent— because he did it too suddenly — because he did not first tell the monster that he was prepared to do it — because he did not give him a chance to swallow his fangs before he seized them, nor time to enable him to send away and hush up the evidence of his having used them, — if corrupt, demoralized prints will thus join in the cry of Secretary^ Commission and Bishop, against the Niagara friend of virtue, then it is high time that every journal of an opposite character should be heard lifting up its voice clearly and dis- tincly in favour of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds. Let him be cheered in the midst of the wrongs which he suflers, by knowing that a virtuous press will not allow him to be cried down, no matter who attempts it. Let him know that his efforts to rid the church and the pulpit of vile men, meet with the hearty approbation of all virtuous people. Fervently is it to be hoped that he will not allow himself to be silenced by the injuctions of any worm of the dust. Let him remember the great Com- mission, and knowing that he has done nothing to wrest it from his hands, let him continue to preach the Gospel, and let the people of Niagara uphold him therein. If they need material aid. pure minded Churchmen are everywhere ready to furnish it, and so also are their fellow Christians of other names If necessary, let them appoint a suitable agent and they will obtain the requisite assistance. It will doubtless afford pleasure to thousands in Canada thus to manifest their appro- bation of the praiseworthy conduct of the Rev. Mr. Reynolds, and of those Christian friends who have co-operated with him. It does not seem proper to dismiss this subject without ad- verting to the boisteroLS mirth of which it has been the cause in loo many instances. Does it not occur to those who become merry in the contemplation of such iniquity, that they thereby proclaim their own inherent depravity? Do they not perceive that the votary of pollution s cr whom they triumph, as affording proof tliit church member.- and ministers are worse than they themselves ever were ; and that church membernhip is nothing more than a cloak for deeper villainy than common sinners can tolerate ; and that the pulpit furnishes the best possible facilities for pe;;>' trating crimes of the vile.st description : — do they not perceive that the crj-c over which tb^'. axult has resulted in turning back into then own ranks one ^ Ko should never have left them ? and that, however much certain dignitaries were disposed to befriend him, there was stiil founr' : fficient morel energy in the Church to spurn him from his place, and consigi? him to merited obloquy for the hateful imposition which lie had so long succesfully practised upon .them ? These things being :'^| M 70 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. so, their triumph is obviously shortsiffhted and utterly ground- less. Surely it is befitting that their laughter should be turned into mourning, and their joy into heaviness. Let them mourn over their own sins and the sins of others, and thus prove that their ardent aspirations are after purity and virtue, that right- eousness and true holiness m\y be f^stablished for ever. Especially let the churches of every dcnorri nation humble ihei -^selves ; remembering that, ell are Jiabl- to be imposed upon— that all churches hav-", btr:r, and pvoltbly will again be made the dupes of such mo-v as the ^Tiag;A!^i /iri)ri. The church must be a synagogue of Satan, tluii is capttble of exultiag over arAoiher m such calamities. Indignation is not sought lo be awak»;ned agral:istthe Church of England because of wh t »{ suffers hi this case, but because of vhat its rulers have made the Rev. Mr. Reyrolds to suiler, tor me simple per- formance o" a plain Jnd necessary duty. Adulterers have so long escaped w ■ J\ impunity in Canada, that their conduct, during {he p;. t year, in Port Hope, Port Sarnia, and Niagara, is really no matter of surprise. To this day there is no law against the crime; and it is well known v/boever attempts to expose any one of the criminals, is sure to be iibused and maligned in the grossest manner imaginable. It really seems that he who touches one of them, touches the tender soot of thousands, who are immediately in arms for mutual defence ; so that nothing appears to be left lo the injured but, Brogden-like, to seize tho revolver and make the author of his wrongs expiate his guilt in blood. The necessity for legis- lation here is so apparent, thai if more blood is shed it must be charged to the legislators of Canada, if they allow another sesj'ion lo pass without providing tor the suitable punishment of lewdness in all its forms, of assaults on the peace and welfare of societv. {To the Editor of the Globe.) Sir, — I trust that your regard for our comrioii Christianity, which has suffered severely from the leading communication in your issue of the 12lh Jan., and your willingness to extend common justice to one, who, on the testimony of his family phy- sician, given under the solemn sanction of an oath, and endorsoul ds to his premises, by two leading •edicul men, and on the testimonv of several of the most resppctal: hahitants of Niagara, who !*^d known him intimately for 30 ;. •:.. ^ , given under the samesol< mn «»'\nction, has been pio -H t' ' ive suffered at times from aber- '; ion of mind when he ^ not properly be held accountable ,c/ his acts, will induce ;, c lo give admission, in thu solumns of i THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 71 Mion it end phy- )rsed K iTin laber- tdable ins of your widely circulated journal, to the following statement of facts, for the correctness of which I hold myself responsible. Late on the evening of September the 26th of last year, I reached home, after an absence of twelve days, and found a letter from the Lord Bishop of Toronto, dated the 22nd of that month, appointing me one of d, commission, granted to the Rev. Thomas Creen, on his own request, to inquire into the truth of certain imputations cast upon his character, and requiring me to meet the other commissioners at Niagara that very day. Next morning I repaired at as early an hour as possible to that town, and there found only the Archdeacon of York, the head of the commission. He informed me that they had made the inquiry the day previous, and offered to show the evidence taken on oath ; and when I learned from its perusal, that the Hon. W. H. Dickson and Mr. Woodruff had testified that they had seen in Mr. Green's own hand writing, the horrible letter to Mrs L , of which a copy appeared in your issue of the 12th Jan., I said at once to the Archdeacon, "I required to see '' no more ; as Mr. Dickson has sworn to that fact, I am per- " fectly convinced that Mr. Creen is utterly unworthy to dis- " charge any longer his duties as a clergyman of our church." I retuned home with this sad impression on my mind ; and when, in October Mr. Creen applied to me, to exert any influ- ence I might possess with the Bishop, to induce his Lordship to allow him to retire on his full allowance of £206 per annum and painting in the dullest colours the deplorable state of his family if forced to subsist on £100 per annum (the allowance which the Bishop had kindly offered him if he would resign the rectory and be put on the retired list,)I replied that it would be im- possible for me to do any such thing ; for that, if he would look to his indenture with " the Church Society," he would perceive that he could claim the full allowance on three conditions only ; 1st, that he is in the discharge of his ministerial duties ; or 2nd, that, he is incapacitate 1 from their discharge by bodily infirmity ; or 3rd, by mental infirmity ; none of which conditions I thought he could plead. I further stated to him my fears, that if he persisted in urging this, by grasping at the shadow, he would lose the substance ; for the Bishop would then feel bound to put him on a regular trial : and as Mr. Dickson and others could swear that they had seen the original of his sad letter to Mrs. L in his handwriting, the Bishop would feel called to degrade him ? and then he would not only lose the allowance, which fhe Bishop kindly proposed to extend to him, in consi- deration of his long services and his very straitened circum- stances ; but ihat he would thereby endanger poor Mrs. Creen*s claims for a pension in case of her surviving him. This reply 72 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. destroyed all the hopes that he entertained of securing his full allowance ; and he thoughtfully acceded to the Bishop's offer to allow him to go on the retired list with £lOO per annum. Thus Mr. Green's case stood till the 30th of last December, when on visiting Niagara I called to see Mr. Powell ; and our conversation naturally turned on this case. Mr. Powell stated to me that he had for a long time back had suspicions about the soundness of Mr. Creen^s mind; ti'iat the more he considered what had occurred oflate^ the more was he confirmed in these suspicions; that ho had lately been in conversation with Dr. Campbell on the subject, who stated to him that he had not a shadow of doubt about it, and that he (Dr. C.) was ready so to state his convic- tions to the Bishop, it it could be of any service to poor Mr. Creen and his family. I called to see Dr. Campbell the same afternoon ; and when I told him my business, he expressed his delight that I had taken the case up, as he felt convinced that Mr. Creen was being hardly dealt with, through misunderstand- ing of his case. He said that he was perfectly convinced that Mr. Creen for years back had been subject to fits of aberration of mind, when he was not aware of what he did, and that he was fully satisfied that he has written the letter to Mrs. L , in one of those fits. He stated and illustrated his position in such an able manner, that 1 was perfectly convinced of the correct t3S8 of his ptemises, and asked him if he would kindly present me with a certificate to that effect. He offered to do so at once ; but I told him that I would prefer his takir.g time to write it out at his leisure, and send it to me by mail. This he did the next day ; and I here send a copy of a document, which in my humble opinion does credit to both the Dr.'s head and heart, Niagara, 31 St Dec. 1856. " My Dear Sir, — With reference to our conversation yester- day, you are probably aware that 1 have been Mr. Green's medical adviser ever since 1 have been in Niagara, now nearly eight years, and that during that period, I have had every opportunity of observing him. " I have long been convinced that Mr. Creen has for some years back been subject io a certain form of aberration of mind; and if the question of his sanity were referred to in a court of justice I would have no hesitation whatever in declaring under oath, that I consider him of unsound mind. " It would clearly have been a breach of professional confi-^ dence to have made any allusion lo this unfortunate subject whilst Mr. Green was in the discharge of his duties ; but it would be both cruel and unjust in me not to speak n w, when ft),> :"^aimission, before the judge could find time to execute its duties, thought he would forestall the evi- dence that might be adduced against him, and astonished the good old judge by preaching before him a most beautiful and able sermon, from the words of St. Paul — '' I am not mad, most noble Festus ; but speak forth the words of truth and sober- ness." The result, however, was the same as in the case of Dr. Campbe-'s unhappy assailant — confirmed insanity The second objection that demands consideration here is — if this was really the state of Mr. Green's mind, previous to the inquiry on the 26th of September last — why was it not shown on that inquiry .-* I made ahis object' ri myself, t'pn I first heard of this new view, in whicli Ivli. Green's case "^as pre- sented ; and I was assured that Dr. Gampbell, who as the only person in Niagara whOy at that time^ had formed any clear, definite and authoritative conclusion on the subject, m ' ing a member of the church, was not made acquainted with the painful circumstances of the difficulties between Mr. Green and the assistant minister, 'except by common report; that not knowing that he could be of any service to Mr. Green at the i'.t'juiry, i'rom v^ jrance of the matters to be inquired into, and having a large and important practice, he did not conceive it his duty to attend the inquiry. That Mr. Green made no defence, ha lug been corrj-Ietely pai alyzed by the nature of the charges brought against him, so much so indeed, that persons were quite at a loss to ''ccount for the extraordinary apathy and. want ol feeli g displayed by him, during the course of the inquiry; ariu at hose friends, who stood by him in his diffi- culties, had iiu CO ceplion that Dr. Gampbell had formed any such conclusions as to the state of Mr, Green's mind, till some time after the inquiry. One peculiarity ot Mr. Green's conduct that 1 have learned of late, was never to counsel with those friends on whom he could rely, and many such there were in the THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 75 Ind nx'i^h. They, therefore, knew almost nothing about his case ; .11(1 when the letter to Mrs. L was brought home to him, c-n evidence they could not question, they could only hold down their heads in silence, and mourn over his fearful fall, I know that this was my feeling, and it was only when I got the new light that Dr. Campbell throw upon the case, that I could see any chance of being of any service to Mr. Creen. Having obtained the above certificate from Dr. Campbell, who stands exceedingly high as a medical man, I lost no time in endeavouring to place the matter in its true light. Accord- ingly, early in January, and before the publication of the said case in your paper of the I2th of that month, I had communi- cated with the iov. Messrs. Atkinson and Given?., (two of the commissioners on thii inquiry on the 26th of September last) in hopes of being enabled to bring, about the very inquiry that has since taken place ; and when I heard from them, I wrote to the other commissioner, the venerable archdeacon of York. In the archdeacon's reply I was requested to ascertain from Dr. Campbell the probable cause of the mental aberration, under which he considered that Mr. Creen had at limes laboured. Having obtained this information from the Dr. and communi- cated it to the archdeacon, I received from him a letter to the following effect : — CoBouRG, Jan. 29th, 1857. " My Dear Sir, — I have this day received the Bishop's reply to my letter communicating your views, with accompanying documents, upon Mr. ('recn's nase. His lordship writes as follows : ' I have carefully [)erused the Rev. Dean Fuller's letter ; and after prayerful deliberation, I think that the right course to take is to re-assemble the commission, with instruc- tions to extend the inquiry into the state of Mr. Creen's mind for some time past, takinL^ Di. Campbell's evidence upon oath, and, if possible, that of two other medical men. Moreover, let Mr. Powell's testimony be taken, and that of such other res- pectable inhabitants of ^i iagara as may be cognisant of Mr. Creen's slate of mind :. and if you can honestly report, that he has not for years been altogether sane, when he could not be responsible for his conduct, then he will, as Dean Fuller truly states, come under the third condition of the commutation agreement, mental infirmity, and become entitled to the full retirement. The inciuiry must be conducted with strictness and delicacy, and the testimony severely tested before a right conclusion can be fairly drawn, and if under such a severe revision your report be that Mr. Creen labours at times under aberration of mind, 1 shall rejoice in giving him the benefit 76 THE NIAGARA. CUURCU CASE. which it may fairly warrant. We rinsit not, however, permit ourselves to be swayed by Mr. Tiv eu's deplorable state, or that ot" his family, however pitiabl*.^ but only by the cogency of the proofs adduced. All this is no doubt attended with trouble and expense ; but in no other way can a result in so grave a matter be obtained that shall command respect and be deemed effective in bringing out the whole truth." Such was the extract from the Bishop's very able and judi- cious letter, furnished me in that of the archdeacon; and in accordance with a recommenilation of the archdeacon, the com- missioners met in St. Mark's Church, Niagara, (the Rev. A. P. Atkinson btiing unable to attend in consequence of recent illness) on 5th January, and proceeded publicly to take the evidence offered them on oath. G. A. Clement, Esq., J. P., Churchwarden ; James Luck, for sixteen years sexton ; Kev. W. Leeming, rector of ('hippawa ; Col. Kingsinill, sheriff of the county ; Miss Priscilla Stewart, an intimate friend of Mr. Green's family ; Dr. Campbell and Col. Macdougall, Treasurer of the county, wqre severally examined. Mr. Powell was un- fortunately absent, being on his way from Toronto, and though he used every exertion to reach home in lime, did not do' so until the sesjsion of the commissioners had closed. The evidence of all these parties tended to the same point, more or less subs- tantially. It will, therefore, in this necessarily long narrative, be unnecessary to give more than an epitome of the evidence offered by Col. Kingsmill, Miss Stewart, and Col. Macdougall ; whilst the importance of that given by Dr. Campbell, demands that it sfiould be given at length. Col. Kingsmill testified that he had known Mr. Creen intimately tor the last twenty years; that Mr. Creen shewed within the last five or six years, a manner ol" demeanour very different from what it had been previously; that circumstances within that interval had oc- curred, evincing such peculiar strangeness of conduct on the part of Mr. Creen, that he had felt convinced that they could not have emanated from a man of sound mind. He found him so utterly impracticable, that he (Col. K.) expressed to his own family his belief that Mr. Creen must be insane ; that he would ask advice of him, and faithfully promise to act!upon it, and yet within one hour would go indirect contradiction to it, without being able to assign any reason for the change ; that he does not believe that this stran<^e conduct was in every case, the efft'Ct of indulgence in the use of liquors ; but that from the sudden flighty way in which he exhibited this strangeness and contradiction ot manner, he is fully convinced and satis- fied that Mr. Creen was, at times, visited by. unaccountable fits of derangement of mind that he believes that when Mr. THE NIAOATIV CnURCH CASE. n Creen penned the letter to Mrs. L he war in one of these peculiar moods, and it did not at all surprif * hiTn, when he heard of his having written that letter; tha* !i.* appeared to delight in writing when in these moods, and since his retire- ment has written in such a way as to corroborate the belief of his insanity. Miss Priscilla Stewart, testified, that she had known Mr. Creen for thirty years, had seen him very constantly, and for the last two years, almost daily ; had noticed within the last two or three years a manner and conduct in Mr. Creen at times very difllerent from what they had formerly been ; for instance, great absence of mind, want of collectedness, and forgetfulness ; that there had been an impression on her mind, that there was some derangement of intellect in Mr. Creen ; that his pecu- liarities were shown suddenly and did not last long ; that at times he was moody and then would be suddenly excited ; that these peculiarities would be observed in a single inter- view; that he would sny and do extraordinary things, at which immediately after he would express surprise and regret ; that she firmly believed that these pecularities were not the effect of indulgence in liquors; that she is entirely convinced of the contrary ; that many ol her friends, some of whom had, she said, worked at Mr. Green's house, entertained the same impression regarding Mr. Creen, and entirely rejected the idea that his aberrations of mind were owing to indulgence in liquor ; that during her thirty years' intercourse with the family, she had never seen Mr. Creen take any undue familiarities with any one ; that she did not believe that the insinuation regarding Mr. Creen's immoral conduct with other persons had any foun- dation in truth ; that during the strange moods, of which she had spoken, Mr. Creen showed a remarkabie mania for writing ; that she herself had held back certain communications, very wild and objectionable in their style and character, which he intended should be sent to persons in town. The following affidavit in his own words Dr. Campbell handed me as his evidence in regard to the case, and I here transcribe it for the information of the readers of your widely circulated journal : — '• Personally appeared bv^fore me, one of Her Majesty's jus- tices of the peace in and lor the county of Lincoln, this 5th day of February, 1857, Duncan Campbell, of Niagara, Esq., M. D., and being duly sworn, deposed as follows. " (Signed,) George A. Clement, J. P." •* I have been Mr. Creen's family medical adviser for the last eight years, and during that time have had very frequent 78 THE NIAGARA CHTJRCH CASE. opportunities of seeing him. About six years ago he was under my care, while suffering from what I then considered a hypochondriacal affection ; since that time I have noticed a very marked change in his manners, his habits and his general appearance ; and I consider that since then he has not been of perfectly sound mind. I do not think that this change can be attributed to intemperance ; as the usual effect of indulgence in intoxicating liquors is to produce an acute disturbance of the mental faculties, not a chronic degeneration of them, although the symptoms might at times, resemble those pro- duced by intoxication. I am not aware of Mr. Creen being the subject of any special hallucination. I believe that the form of unsoundness of mind, from which he suffers, is per- fectly compatible vith the regular and orderly discharge of accastomed duties, nd even with the manifestation of unusual acuteness in ordinary affairs. It may be said to consist in the utter helplessness of the will, and a total loss of that empire, which reason should possess over the passions , and the actions by which they are manifested, to such an extreme, that the unfortunate individual so affected, can neither repress the former nor abstain from the latter, and all the most eminent mediological authorities have held, that one visited by the Almighty with such an affliction, cannot be held accountable for his actions.* " I could cite numerous cases bearing upon this point, and quote very high authorities in corroboration of my views ; but I have not time at present to enter further into the matter. *' (Signed,) D. Campbkll, M.D." Subsequently Dr. Campbell furnished me with several quo- tations from an article on insanity in the " Library ot Practi- cal Medicine," by Dr. Tritchard of Bristol, England. These iji.rtaiions?, which are very much to the point, are how- ever, so long, that 1 do not venture to ask you to print them ; though for the infovmalion of your medical readers who may be curious to see further into 1 he matter, I state that the Dr. quotes from the Americtan Edition of the work, and from pages 178, and 179, and 180, 181 and 189. To these quotations the doctor appended these remarks : " In the above quoted opinions of Dr. Pritchard, whom I consider the highest medical authority on the subject of insanity, I completely and cordially agree ; and I furthermore consider that the description of moral insa- nity given above, coincides In almost every particular with the case of the unfortunate Mr. Creen of Niagara." Having shewn Dr. Mack of St. Catherines the afii iavit of Dr. Campbell, and having read to him the evidence taken "■■'- I'l THE NIAGARA CHURCH CAwSB. 7-9 lay )t. ![es the )ns ity pe; of len under oath at Niagara, the day previous, that eminent physician did not hesitate to furnish us with the following satisfactory opinion on the subject. " St. Cathkrines, 6th Feb. 1857. " I having carefully considered ihe case of Mr. Creen, as supplied by Dr. Campbell in his affidavit, and listened to the depositions of other parties examined at Niagara before the commissioners appointed to receive such evidence. I beg leave to certify that I am of opinion, that he is, and has been, of unsound mind, and that his case in most respects corres- ponds to the description of insanity termed " Dementia.'' " (Signed,) Theoph. Mack, M.D." The following able opinion was subsequently obtained from John Scott, M.D., Toronto, iormerly superintendent of the Pro- vincial Lunatic Asylum : — ** I have read the testimony of the several parties examined upon oath before the commissioners appointed to hear evidence in the case of Rev. Mr. Creen, touching the state of his mind. " I consider the statement made by these parties entitled to much consideration, having been made under the solemn sanc- tionof an oath, and from their acqnainlancewith the habitsofMr. Creen, obtained by uninterrupted familiar social intercourse, for a great many years. I would here premise, that it is ex- tremely difficult to form an opinion in a matier of such impor- tance and delicacy as determining the state of mind of an individual, without having an interview with the party most concerned and it is to be understood that any deductions I may draw from the statements submitted to me, must not be considered of the same weight or value as though I had had the advantage of close personal observation of the appearance, demeanour, conversation, and geneial conduct of the Rev. gentleman. The general tenor of the evidence goes to prove, that a marked difference in the conduct of the Rev. Mr. Creen hns been perceptible to many of his intimate and old friends, for some years past, and this difTerence, in their opinion, is not to be ascribed to habits of intemperance. "The loss of memory so prominently mentioned; the un- meaning laughter ; the impaired judgment, evinced by his acting contrary to his expressed convictions ; the abrupt, impul- sive manner; the altered manner and conduct ; abstractedness; the sudden transition from a moody melancholy state to one of excitement ; the novel propensity to hold written communication v4th parties, not formerly his correspondents, and that of a character incompatible with his position and usual style ; these peculiarities when taken in connection with his age, must go 80 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. far to support the opinion that he is and has been, labouring under dementia — the result of the progress of age. The letter written to Mrs. L is perhapr the strongest evidence as to the impaired intellect of the writer; senile dementia being often characterised by a morbid excitement of passions and a perversion of propensities. Indeed it is difficult to believe that such a document as that adressed to Mrs. L could have been written by Mr. Creen, except when under some form of menial derangement. His age, profession, and social circum- stances forbid any other conclusion. (Signed) John Scott. M. D. « Toronto, Feb. Uth 1857." I may properly close the evidence given in this lamentable case with that of Col. Macdougall, an old resident of Niagara and universally respected. His evidence, freely tendered, is of the greater weight, as he is a Roman Catholic. He testified that he had known Mr Creen intimately ever since Mr. Creen's first ministrations in Niagara. That he always believed him to be a pious, humble Christian ; and that from his long knowledge of him as a kind father and husband he was satisfied, when he first heard of his having written the letter to Mrs. L , that it must have been written when suffering from mental derangement. The commissioners appointed by the Lord B' iliop of Toronto to institute this inquiry closed their report in these words: — " From the evidence before us, and after giving it our full and faithful consideration, we are of opinion tjut while tho retirement of Mr. Creen from his ministrations as clergyman in the diocese, has become absolutely necessary, he is entitled to be allowed to retire with his full allowance in accordance with the guarantee of the Church Society, that it shall oe continued, without abatement, to those who, amongst other causes are obliged to relinquish duty through mental infirmity. All which is respecfuUy submitted. " (Signed) A. N. Bethune, D. D. Saltehn Givens, T. B. Fuller D. D." Thus, Sir, have I endeavoured to discharge a duty to a brother clergyman, suffering under a grievous affliction from the Almighty, in preparing for publication a statement of his case, based on evidence taken on oath, and on the opinio^ of eminent medical men, given with a view to publication, and I have to thank you. Sir, for affording to me the same opportu- nity for placing before your numerous readers, this plea for poor Mr. Creen, that you afforded to the writer of the leading THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 81 a )tn lis of Ind tu- for communication in your issue of the 12th January, to injure him, and in which the horrible letter to Mrs. L was so un- necessarily, and with such a shock to cohimon morality intro- duced ; and I would assk, as a matter of common justice, that those papers, in this country and elsewhere, which have so grievously blackened Mr. Green's character, will now do what they can, to repair that injury. Having thus given what 1 believe to be a iaifhful narrative of Mr. Green's case, I deem it my duty, before closing this lengthy communication, to make a few remarks as to the unjust and arbitrary treatment which the Rev. Mr. Reynolds is alleged to have received at ihe hands of the Lord Bishop of Toronto, in consequence of some remarks in regard to him, made by ihe commissioners in their report of the inquiry held by them on the 2Gth of September last. 1. Mr. Reynolds was originally suspended from the discharge of his duties in St. Mark's Church, Niagara, on tlie recom- mendation, not of the com., issioners, but of the churchwardens previous to the inquiry, as those of your readers, who will turn to your issue of the 12th of January, will see. 2. Knowing full well, as they did, that Mr. Green (whatever his faulis might have been) had many friends in the congrega- tion, Avhom he had won during his 30 years' ministry, by his harmlt ';sness of conduct and by his kindliness of disposition, especially in times of trial and affliction, and who though they could not defend his recent conduct, yet still entertained a deep persons on I'll EN, jtlier rive, linst Ireen Ihers up They attack mo, too, for " unnecessarily shocking common morality" by the publication of the Mrs. L letter. This is all stale and musty clatter. They seek, by trying to rob my conduct of any claim to respectability, to make good their own case. See what '' an unprecedented outrage " he has com- mitted. See how he has insulted the Bishop. . Alas ! how vilely he has slandered poor 3Ir. Creen.'''' And oh ! shame, how he has shocked "common morality." It puts one in mind of the condition of some poor animal that vicious boys have got in a corner for the purpose ot torturin<,% and when the creature shows fight, they cry, Oh ! see how venomous it is ! how his eyes glare — how he spits fire — kill him — kill him ! I never sought to cruelly injure Mr. Creen. I looked upon him to \w on the 2Gth of Septembei*, a guilty criminal — and so did they all. Ami so do I still — and so do they all ! As to the old chant about my having insulted the Bishop, that has been so olten dwell upon, ;tnd so much has been said to refute the lie, that it seems ridiculous to recur to it again. But I would only say, let p:'opl(! turn to these insulting (.'')epistles published in the Globe of the 12th January, and judge for themselves. To confess these letters to be insulting in their character, (the first was humility itself in its tone) to express my regret for having wrillen them, and to enter into a written engagement to leave the Upper Province of Canada forthwith, was the price demanded for my letters demissory. But there was one condition upon which I could remain, — that is, if I would accept a charge where I should have a chance of ''retrieving my character in some part of tht'diot ese remote from the scene of my late indiscretiory, and in a charge where a possible failure of sound judgment and discretion would operate less disastrously ujjou the interests of the Church." Did you know before this, Sir, that we had a Czar in Canada that could banish a man to Siberian regions for vexing him ? Mr. Fuller, in the barrenness of his fancy, takes hold of an already over-used and worn out argument, with regard to what I ought to have done previous to my having declined to take the Sacrament at Mr. Creen's hands. That I " ought to have first gone alone as a Christian brother to Mr. Creen, &c.," (he ignores my letter to that individual) " and then have reported what F learned to the Bishop, &o.'' Here he daubs the Bishop with a little flattery about his "justice," his holding the balance of justice with a firm and steady hand, &c." Stale, Sir, Stale. And then he goes at the old army figure again (we know that iMr. Fuller is not remarkable for originality of mind, but he might have tried to lisp oui something for once,) if " an ensign in the army, who having heard something 89 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. against the captain of his company, &c." F'rom which of the Rev. gentlemen did this brilliant comparison first emanate? They certainly have made all the use they could of it. Poor Mr. Fuller does so with a simplicity of style which shows that he thought it all his own- and that it was one of the most novel arid convincing arguments supplied by any of the Rev. reasoners yet. Ah ! Sir, rank and position in the church as it is in the army, is what most occupies their minds. Colonel — Captain — Lieutenant — Ensign ; or rather, Bishop, Archdeacon, Rural Dean and Hector, — these are their aims, and not the salvation of souls. How. Sir, is it possible that the Rev. Mr. Fuller could deli- berately insert in your columns of the 6lh insl., his Jesuitical history <>f the sly and truthless proceedings of the inquisitorial band that reassembled in St. Mark's on the 5th Jan. and not blush to think that he, a minister of the Gospel could thus wilfully attempt to dupe Christian people to whom he professes to give a correct view of " the Niagara Church case" in his plea f(ir ' poor Mr. Crecn?'' What right or authority had Messrs. Bethune, Fuller & Co. to come to Niagara, form themselves into a court, and ad- minister oaths which thky knew to be illegal ? They took evidence, too, forsooth, as this worthy runil dean says, " under the solemn Kanciion of an oath." This makes a fine flourish, and no doubt he imagined that it was calcuLted to gull the {mblic. But, Sir, he well knew that what he and his coi- eagues were administering as an oath, was no oath at all, and that any ainounl of falsehood and corruption which they could procure " under the solemn sanction" of this humbug oath was not indictable as perjury, and therefore they had full latitude under the very roof of God's house to hatch falsehood, murder truth, and pervert justice, turning!: the very Sanctuary into a den of fraud ! But as this noble rural dean exullingly stated a short time oefore, when he learned that he could get Dr. Campbell's certificate of the Rector's insanity, " it will save the Church." He cared little how he accomplished his pur- pose, believing in the good old Romish doctrine, that ^' the end justified the means.'' But, Sir, did the lafe Commission of entjuiry aj)pointed to ascertain ihe slate of Mr. CrcfMi's mind., actually find upon sufficient evidence that thai individual was insane ? Dr. Campbell openly di-nies that he asserted .Mr. Orcen U) be rNTiiLLKCTu.ALLY iusauc — or in other words afllicted with that kind of insanity which is recognized in (Jourls of law as ex- empting an individivl from the pniii.slimeMt awaiting guilt. He calls Mr. Creen's insanity moral derangement — a statL- in THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 87 md which the individual's desires or passions are so loose and ardent, that he will indulge them, without recognizing the Jaws of society or any rule that maybe set up against their indulgence. But as far as mind or intellect is concerned, the ex-rector's mind is as sound and unaffected as his (Dr. Camp- bell's ;) that his afTection is purely animal, not mental. Such is the doctor's declaration to the many persons who are daily discussing the topic with him. Will not such a state- ment describe the condition of any criminal who is guilty of murder, rape, or any brutal or lustful act. It is strange that Doctor Campbell should make the statement, that yir. Green's peculiarities did not arise from drunkenness, Tvhen he told Dr. Mack and several other gentlemen in this town that he (Dr. Campbell) had attended Mr Creen when that individual was SQf!ierh^g (rom ddinum tremens ! Dr. Mack can deny this if it is not trf e. There are some remarkable features about the "hypochondriacal affection" spoken of by the Doctor which deserve to be told. A couple came to Mr. Green's to be mar- ried, but it was found thai ho was so stupid and prostrated from the effects of drunkenness, that he was not able to perform the ceremony. Dr. Campbell was sent for and he administered some remedies to clear iiway the fog, and the ceiemony was performed Dr. Campbell tells the story ever since as a good joke, ami says he performed more than one h^lf of the parson's duty on the occasion, which it .seems is literally true ! Mr. William Moffati, inn-keeper in this town was the bride's father and was present at the marriage of his daughter, and he says, and has said within the last week, that upon that occasion Mr. Creen was in a fit of delirium tremens, or had a.s he terms it the "ft/we 0* nlsy Surely a tavern-keeper ought to know some- thing of the ffects produced by excessive drinking. But more than all this, the Bishop and Mr. rural dean Fuller over- hauled Mr. Creen on account of it, and extra'Med a solemn promise from him to abstain in future from the use of spirituous drinks, — a promise immediately aftrwards violated. What becomes of the hypochot/dr/ocal nJJ'ection now? Sir. why did not the sage Commissioners associate Doctor Wilson with Doctor Campbell as a medical witness upon the day of the enquiry.^ He is a man of talent and extensive practice, and nioreover is a member of St. Mark's congrega- tion. 1'he fj. !.s of the case are, they tried Wilson but found that it would not do, the Doctor would not swear up to the mark. He thought that as Mr Creen \va?* not inteUertually insane, it was not necessary for medical testimony to prove that he wa« a |tr«>lligate, iinmorai man. When Dr. Wilson fails tl" 1 how do the Comujissioners then act .? They take 88 THE NIAGARA CnURClI CASE. the airy, theorofical certificate of Dr. Caiii|)l)('ll to Ur. Mack for eiHlor,>('ll's life. Tlie Dr. has informed me and otliersthat the frenzy under which this medical man laboured arose from the too fre< indulgence of his desires. If the truth must be told, horn an xcess of that passion which dictated Mr. Green's lettci t>. Mrs. L . What an unfortunate allair to mention as a parallel ease ! A thee her illustration (I nn an the hislo- . < <" the cler- ' Atontreai Diocese) submitted !it \..i , '/e by the I d'-nn, it puzzles one to iind out Vvii-' usci it is to 'It. ii is simply the story of a Rev. genlieman who md was so cast down by his bereavement that ,11 the shape ol extreme extravagance and expen- diture eii (i(;d. This is the first insinuation that has been made of Mr. Creen being afiruMed with monomania, and it is rather a contradiction, for they elsewhere give him as changeable a character as a clown in a circn, — mirth, gloom, laughter, &c., ^c. ; to which might be added a turn for writing love letters and a lamentable Inndness fu' intoxicatiii;^' driidts. The other witnesses besides Dr. Campbell who were exa- mined '"" under the solemn sancl iOn" of the commissioners' mock oalh^ were ''.lames Luck, for sixteen years sexton ; Rev. Mr. Leeming, rector of Chippawa; Col. Kiii'Tsi'.iill, sherilf of the county ; Miss Priscilla St-wari, an intimatt iriend of Mr. Ceen's fan)ily ; and Col. Macdongall, treasurer of the county." How is it that Mr. Fuller do^ s not ^ive us tin; benefit of James Luck's evidence? Ah ! no, this he carefully avoids, while like a sly Jesuit he mentions thai this man was "for six- teen years serton," thereby artfully implying that the sexton, who was for so long a period near Mr. Crcen's person, w^is a fit and proper witness to testify lo his state of mind, and that he did give testimony to the eliect that he believed Mr. Cret-n to be insane. This is the effort he makes with more dishonesty than ability, for the truth lies precisely the other way. James Luck, when questioned by the commissioners, stated that he never saiv anything ahnut Mr. Creen,, or in his manner or habits to lead him fo suspect that he ivas insane ! What will you think Sir, of Mr. Dean Fuller's honesty and artlessness after trying to dupe the public thus .^ But the same James Luck could certify if asked on oath by Mr. Fuller, that he has found Mr. Creen dead drunk in a pew in Church at 11 o'clock at night, and also that he knew him to be in a stale of intoxication many times. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) L '^ {./ /. i« 1.0 I.I Ui|2£ |2.5 ■50 "^^ M^H 2.0 1.8 1.25 U 11.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation '^." 4 <^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 v^ THE NIAGARA CHT7RCH 0A8B. Again, why does Mr. Fuller withhold the testimony of the Rev. W. Leerning, rector of Chippawa — a gentleman for years and years i\Ir. Green's intimate friend ? Why, it would not suit. " honest, honest Iago*s" purpose ! The rev. gentleman^ s testimony was similar to that of James Luck. As to Col. Kingsmill's testimony 1 will only say that the worthy sheriff a few days after the first commission (26lh Sept.) expressed his regret to me, as also to the Rev. Mr. Torrance, that he was unavoidably absent upon official business, or he would have presented himself to add the weight of his testi- mony to that of those who established the facts of Mr. Green's habits of drunkenness aud falsehood. There is no person in Niagara who has been more vehement against Mr. Green on these very points than the Golonel. But, Sir, Mr. Fuller must have a lady witness too. And who of all the females in Niagara does he seleci but (put out the lights!) Miss Priscilla Stewart ! Col. Macdougall's evidence is not very serviceable to their case. He merely stales that he knew the late Rectf)r of Nia- gara for many years and "that he had always believed him to be a pious, humble Christian.'' Or in other words was like many other persons grossly deceived by his fictitious piety. And that " when he first heard of his having written the letter to Mrs. L , he believed it must have been written when he was suffering from mental derangement." Poor, amiable old gentleman, what a v;ist amount of service his want of suspicion has been to Mr. Fuller ! Could not Mr. Fuller get the old associate of Mr. Creen to prove the main point — insanity ' No, all he could get out of the venerable Col. was, that he thought any one writing such a villainous document as the letter to Mrs. L , could scarcely be in his right senses. And truly so might any moral man. that is any one not suffer- ing under "dementia"! especially an ix^ed gentleman like Col. Macdougall, whose passions had long sunk to rest. But, Sir, what does the entire evidence amount to after all ? Why, that Col. Kingsmill did not swear that it was his con- viction that Mr. Creen was insane, but that " he expressed to his own family (he does not siy when — perhaps that morning at breakfast) his belief that Mr. Creen must be insane." The next witness, Miss , no, I beg your pardon, Sir, Col. Macdougall, thinks it unlikely that a sensible man would write a lewd letter. All this is backed up and sttengthened by a scientifically obscure cenificate from Dr. Campbell, endorsed by two other medical gentlemen living at a distance, and who never saw Mr. Creen in their lives. What an overwhelming amount of evidence ! wliy, Sir, it is (pallia conclusive, and if THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. tendered in a case tried in a court of justice would carry off a verdict from any jury without their retiring to consult for five minutes. " Mr. Powell," says Mr. rural dean Fuller, " was unfor- tunately absent, being on his way from Toronto, and though he used every exertion tc reach home in time, (?) did not do so till the session of the Commissioners had closed." How pathetically Mr. rural dean Fuller regrets that •* Mr. Powell was unfortunately absent !" One feels inclined to pity the poor man mourning over the loss of Mr. Powell's valuable testimony in supporting the " dementia?'* business. But, sir, here the Jesuit appears again— he does not really mourn the loss of Mr. Powell's testimony. No, this candid, fair, ingenuous rural dean knows well that he could not have a more profitless witness than Mr. Powell to give evidence " under the solemn sanction " of the Commissioners' mock oath. For even though the parties administering that nath and also the worthies who took it, knew the oath to be a farce and a fraud, and that they might belch forth torrents of lies with impunity (as they were not indictable for perjury) still Mr. Powell was well aware that every one in the parish was in possession of the fact that he, Mr. Powell, knew all about Mr. Green's intemperate habits. Several persons can prove that they heard Mr. Powell himself state that he saw Mr. Cret'n a short time before the Commis- sioners sat, " going down the street so drunk that he fell three or lour times flat on his face in the mud." Ah ! let me ask honest Mr. Fuller, who has thus impiously written — *'I have ENDEAVOURED TO DISCHARGE A DUTY TO A BROTHER CLERGYMAN, SUFFERING UNDER A GRIEVt^US AFFLICTION FROM THE AlMIGHTY," where is his blush ? The amiable witnesses above named have committed them- selves ridiculously when they stated their belief that the foul letter to Mrs. L was penned by Mr. Creen in one of his imaginary "peculiar moods." They were not present when the Commissioners held their enquiry on the 26th of last Sep- tember. If they were they would have heard Mr. Creen stating as an extenuating circumstance that he was drunk when he wrote that letter. His defence was " that he was up at Chip- pawa, that it was a very cold day and he felt chilled, and he took some hot toddy, and when he came down to Niagara he took some more hot toddy ! And under the stimulus of the drink he wrote the letter." Did Mr. Fuller never hear (he did as rural dean of the district hear) hew Mr. Creen's bibbing and amative propensities went hand in hand upon another occasion when he wont into one of those common drinking establishments styled a recess, with 92 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. a peculiar companion — a married woman too, and had a feast of oysters and his beloved toddy, and then reeled oft'lo nnolher recess, — and finally wound up the glories of the day by getting into the church and sleeping off the effects of his debauchery on a cushion. Mr. Fuller might gel Dr. Campbell, who has already been so useful to him, to tell him another story of the ex-rector's love and whiskey frolics. But the rural dean is well "posted up " in the history of tho merry parson's pranks. Still if he has never heard Dr. Campbell give an account of the affair, he knows nothing of "dementia " ! I allude to the notorious Miss case. I have heard Dr. Campbell tell it as he stood in the centre oi a group of listeners, and I felt truly disgusted at the detaiK The doctor stated that being intimate with the lady he had heard all about it from her own lips. " The facts of the case,'' said the Dr., 'are just these : Miss- -was sitting alone on a sofa and Creeii staggered in and flung himself down beside her, and leered at her this way, (here the Dr. dramati- cally illustrated) while a streatn of slaver flowed down from each comer of his mouth like a dog. He then put over his hand, but the young lady cried out and fled " Ah ! Sir, this is the object of Mr. Fuller's pity. "Poor Mr. Creen!" There is still another case, tho particulars of which as com- municated to me, I offered before, and still offer to tell under the conditions mentioned by me at a public vestry meeting, held in St Mark's fJhurch in November last. This is the case of "impure advances" dwelt upon so much by the Commis- sioners of the 26th September. I believe. Sir, every one who knows Mr Creen, believes that his first and leading crime has been drunkenne? nd that every other gross irregularity followed as a conseq. . .oe. But Mr. Fuller says he holds himself responsible for the correctness of all he states. Does he mean to say that he BELIEVES Mr. Creen's irregularities arose from insanity and not from drunkenness ? No, he will asset!, no such thing. He knows — every one in Niagara knows (even the virtuous, truth loving witnesses who testified " under the solemn sanction'' of the commissioners' humbug oath) and Mr. Powell into the bargain, that the Bishop and his very rural dean have had " poor Mr. Creen" up frequently before them for drunkenness. And now mark the duplicity of the entire clan attempting to prove that Mr. Creen's peculiarities arose not from drink, but from '' dementia." Verily "dementia" seems to be an epidemic lor it is evident that iheie is something wrong with the whole pious oath-revering body. These are the good churchmen who have rushed to the standard of the Church to save it from THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 93 m the foe. • But I tell you, Sir, nay you yourself, and every rational man knows that a combination of a few nriests clubbed together to smother truth — baffle inquiry — and whisper in holes and corners, and all to screen a guilty, degraded member of their own body, — inflict greater injuries upon the church, than if half the laity of the Province were detected in guilt ; for they seem to endorse crime — make the case as it were their own — to trample down the individual who dared to express his hatred of crime, and fondle the guilty one, leaving the impiession upon the minds of all that " A fellow feeling mokes them wondrous kind." And such is the rural dean's plea for " poor Mr. Creen." Rather, poor Mr. Fuller ! Though rich in wordly gear, still poor, aye, a very pauper in veracity and those christian qualities which should prevent any man, more especially a clergyman from speaking of drunkenness and consequent lewdness as " an affliction from the Almighty !" I shall conclude. Sir, by glancing at one other point men- tioned in Mr. Fuller's luminous production of the 6th inst. He states (and as he evidently thinks ably and forcibly) — " It ought to be further known that Mr. Reynolds' services were secured, not by Mr. Creen, not by the Bishop, not by any of the authorities of the church ; but by a few friends who admired his kind of talents and were carried away by his style of eloquence. And if his full salary is not paid him for the term of his engagement, it will be the fr ult of those friends, who guaranteed his salary." With his usual skill and ability he traps himself. I wish. Sir, to tell you what the rural dean already knows right well, that my appointment as assistant minister of Niagara took place in con- sequence of the expressed desire of a lan^e majority oixhe congregation of the St. Mark's. And I hold the Bishop's license conferring the appointment upon me. My stipend was to be paid by the congregation — guaranteed by six gentlemen of the parish, — the Hon. Mr. Dickson, Mr. Woodruff, Colonel Kingsmill, Mr. Powell, Mr. Mercer, and Mr. Simpson. A small balance of my sdary remains due. The two first named gentlemen in the above list are honourable enough to acknowledge the debt, but those who repudiate it happen to be Mr. Fuller's friends, or at least those who espouse his action in the case. Here is an extract from a letter of the Bishop on the subject dated, Toronto, Feb. 13, 1857, — *' I should nevertheless be sorry, that any portion of the amount be withheld from Mr. Reynolds. I therefore hope, that the parties concerned will deem it more 94 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. becoming to pay their respective portion, than to avail them- selves of any legal difficulty that might be raised. I have the honour to be, Sir, , - Your obdt, humble servant, John Torowto. Such are the Bishop's views. The parties are not my friends but Mr. Fuller's, but that gentleman in his malicious eagerness strikes right and left, he cares not whether at his foes or those who helped him in his recent job. His is a decided case of " dementia.'^ I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, Henrt Dunbar Reynolds, Late Assistant Minister of Niagara. {To the Editor of the Globe.) " Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye make clean the outside ot the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."— Math. 23. 25. Sir, — If ever any body had reason to use the trite excla- mation, '* Save me n-om my friends !" it is the Bishop and others of the clergy of the Church of England concerned in the lale commission for enquiring into the case of the Rev. Mr. Green's alleged lunacy, and who are implicated in the publication of the proceedings of that commission by Mr. Dean Fuller, of Thorold. Sir, this disgraceful Niagara Church case has been, in common parlance, " a mad affair" throughout. But the maddest of all is the conduct of Mr. Fuller, who has given the sanction of his office and name to one of the greatest clerical romances ever imposed upon a community. Mr. Fuller says that the friends of Mr. Green, after hearing the evidence of his case, " could only bow their heads in silence and mourn over his fall." How then must honest members of the Ghurch of England grieve to see their Bishop and Rural Deans sanction- ing, if they did not concoct, the vile tissue ot falsehood and sophistry necessary to make out a colourable case of insanity in a man whom not a single person in Niagara, not even Dr. Gampbell himself, will say is at all unsound as to his intellect. The three first lines of Mr. Dean Fuller's communication disclose plainly the object o{ \\i\s, pious fraud. It is to remove the scandal brought upon the Church by the immoral conduct of one of the Bishop's favourite Rectors^ as well as to afford a pretence for awarding him an additional pension. To effect this, the man must be made out to be mad at whatever sacrifice of truth and justice. Sir, if the credit and reputation of the Church of England is to rest upon a gross imposture — THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. « if Bishop, Archdeacon, and Rural Dean, instead ot' chastising vice whenever discovered in one of their clergy, are to hide and deny it ^ as if the "order" were infallible demi-gods, and not capable of >sin nnd error — I say the hierarchy are inflicting a most fatal wound in the very vitals of religion, and are des- troying the church they are appointed to protect and govern. Alas for the church, when imposture and deceit are necessary, to prop up its reputation ! When reliance can no longer be placed on simple truth and fair play — when virtue and Christian independence are punished, and vice caressed and pensioned — when, in a word, the Rev. Mr. Reynolds is turned out of the ministry and left to die of starvation for refusing to countenance iniquity ; while " poor Mr. Creen" is pardoned and absolved by the plenary authority of the Bishop, and an extra £100 a-year added to his retiring pension. '' Doth God need your lie that for him you may speak deceit ?" is the question of Job to his tempters. We repeat it to the Rev. Dean Fuller and his associates in the Commission, and will now show its entire applicability to their doings in this last investigation. A word as to the appointment of that Court of Inquiry. We demand, and it is a quesiion of immense importance to the public, upon what authority has the Bishop of Toronto given his warrant for holding a commission de lunatico inqutrendo and the examination ofivitnesses upon oath ? What right had Arch- deacon Belhune personally to administer oaths^ as at the first investigation ; and instruct a justice of the peace to do it for him, as at the second ? Is it not a most serious infraction of the law in all concerned, the holding of this ecclesiastical court and making examinations under oath .'' It is to be hoped that the Court of Queen's Bench will not fail to call all these parties to a strict account, and that Parlia- ment, too. will ask the reason why ; and, perhaps, Grand Juries will not be remiss in indicting, if necessary, both Bishop and Archdeacon for so manifest a breach of the law. Setting aside legal considerations, I will, before coming to the evidence, just state in what manner this pretended Court of Inquiry was got together, and how they carried out the Bishop's instructions of taking the testimony of such " inhabitants of Niagara as may be cognizant of Mr. Green's state of mind." You would suppose. Sir, from the Bishop's letter, thai this inquiry was to be a public affair, in which evidence was to be taken fairly and generally, and " severely tested" ending with an "honest report." What was the fact.? On the 6th of January last, the Rev. Dr. Bethune, Rev. Mr. Fuller, and the Rev. Mr. Givens came to Niagara to assist in the induction of the new Rector, Rev. Dr. McMurray. Not a syllable was known i 96 THE NIAGARA CIITJRCn CASE. to the members of the church, except to Mr. Powell, and one or two others, who as particular friends and partizans of Mr. Creen, were to appear as witnesses, that any other business besides the induction was on hand. The principal members of the congregation— the Hon. W. H. Dickson, Judge Campbell, J. L. Alma, the Rev. Mr. Torrance, and others, many of whom had known the Rev. Mr. Creen during his whole career far more intimately than any of the witnesses summoned to give evidence, always save and except Miss PrisciUa Stewart! never had the least intimation that any proceedings were intei ded, to examine Mr. Green's state of mind as to sanity. Why were these gentlemen left in ignorance of so important an inquiry ? plainly, because it was known they would not testify to a man's being insane, who was notoriously in the possession of sound reason, and whose faults were not due to defect of intellect, but to want of moral principle and self control. Well, Sir. after the induction was over, the people were allowed to go home without a hint of this after-piece, the farce that was to f 'low. When all had retired but the initiated, six or eight in number, the commissioners opened their budget, and proceeded to take evidence to establish the insanity of "poor Mr. Creen," and at once " save the church," and plunder the funds of the Church Society of an additional £100 a year to their whitewashed brother Reel or. Now, Sir, it is evident that Mr. Fuller's case rests almost wholly on the medical evidence. But I will first allude to the other features of the evidence before coming to that. 1 will not occupy your cohimns with many reflections on this joint manufacture of a lunatic out of as sane a man as walks the streets. But a %ct or two is worth remarking. How comes it that Dr. Campbell, " the family physician of Mr. Creen, for eight years," lid not go forward on the firs-t trial, and tell the commissioners that his patient was a lunatic. He was in Niagara, and knew as much about the case as any one in the town.? How comes it that not one of Mr. Green's friends or relations came forward and put in their plea, which would at once have saved the Rev. gentleman from all censure ? Evidently nobody had hit on this lucky idea at that time, to save Mr. C.'s reputation and save his pension. It was an afterthought altogether. Or, one may ask, how is it that none of Mr. Green's family or relatives, of whom he has many, came forward on this second investigation to prove insanity.? Simply because they did not believe a word of it, and will not now admit it to be true ; and this case was left to be carried on by the testimony of two or three persons, whose evidence really amounts to nothing in making out a case of insanity. THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 97 ity. Col. McDougall only says that in his opinion M. Creen must have beer, suffering from mental derangement when he wrote that letter to Mr. S. L. . Col. Kings mill had noticed strange conduct^ and does not believe that in every case it was attribu- table to liquor. Mr. C. would promise to do things and not keep his word. And Mr. K. believes he was in one of his peculiar moods when he wrote the aforesaid letter ! In short, the worthy Col. concludes him to have been mad ; though like the Doctor, it never occurred to him to mention it when Mr. Creen was on his trial for the offence, and when such testi- mony would have been invaluable. Then again Miss P. Stev.rart, who knows Mr. Creen so intimately — well, we will let her evidence go for what it is worth, seeing that she does not believe in the insinuations regarding Mr. Creeu's immoral conduct, (notwithstanding his recent convictions.) Now mark the unfairness of the Rev. Mr. Fuller. The above were the only witnesses brought forward who swore to insanity ; but Mr. Fuller.includes in his letter other names, viz. that of the ** Sexton of sixteen years standing," and the Rev. Mr. Leeming, as if they too had testified the same way, when in fact, the Sexton, who knew Mr. Creen as intimately as any man in the world, testified that ^^ he never suspected him of being insane" and the Rev. Mr. Leeming said the same thing. The fact .is. Sir, liquor was all that was in fault, and is. the key to the whole conduct of Mr. Creen. What did Mr. Creen say himself in his defence for writing that letter to Mrs. L. .-* Why, that he was intoxicated at the time he ivrote it., and named the day and place where he hud been visiting, and drank too much ! And yet, sir, in the face of this, the Rev. Mr. Fuller and the Bishop of Toronto will tell the public that the man was insane, and not intoxicated ; and that he is a case for pensions and reward rather than censure. O tempera ! O mores ! The medical evidence on this case, whictt a the ostensible foundation of the Bishop's judgment, is liable to suspicions every way; In the firsl place, two of the physicians, viz : Dr. Mack and Dr. Scott, both living at a distance, never saw the Rev. Mr. Creen in their lives, and in fact only gave an opinion, not on Mr. Creen, but on a made up case laid before them by Dr. Campbell. Now, Sir, that both these two Doctors have inferred a different case from the one laid down by Dr. Campbell, is easy of proof. The case, as stated by Dr. Campbell to the Commissioners, was that Mr. Creen was affected by what Dr. Pritchard lays down as " moral insanity," (I will define this presently,) while Drs. Mack and Scott say that the case is one of " dementia." That I am right in this statement 1 can appeal to a dozen men in Niagara, among o 98 THE NIAGARA CnURClI CASE. them the Hon. W. H. Dickson, J. Woodruff, J. L. Alma, and others, to whom Dr. Campbell has stated in the most positive terms, that Mr. Crecn's case, in his opinion, was one of "moral insanity" — that he told the Commissioners so; and moreover, he told the Commissioners that Mr. Creen was per- fectly sound as to his reason and intellect ; and has, in addition decidedly expressed his opinion that the Rev. Mr. Creen ought to be held accountable for his acts. Now, Sir, Dr. Pritchard, the sole authority quoted in this case, draws a material dis- tinction between "dementia" and *' moral insanity." The former in its mildest form, is always attended by some degree of weakness of intellect, incoherence, loss of memory and inattention to present affairs. As Pritchard says — " In such persons all the powers of the mind are greatly weakened. They have no attitude to any train of thought or business, and are quite unable to fulfil the duties of their profession or business ; they cannot comprehend any continued conversations and all their discourse is marked by diffuseness and incoherence." Now, Sir, no one who knows the Rev. Mr. Creen will venture to say that any one of those marks of" dementia" are applicable to him, much less all of them; Dr. Campbell knows that per- fectly well ; hence his opinion does not at all go to show a case of " dementia," but one of "moral insanity." That Dr. Mack and Dr. Scott shouldthus differ from Dr. Campbell in opinion on a case laid before them by the latter, is a knot for the Doctors to untie. All we need remark on it is the assurance of the Commissioners in parading their essentially discrepant medical opinions as the ground for the decision of the Bishop in Mr. Creen's case. Now as to this " moral insanity," what is it? In Pritchard's work it is defined as a " morbid perversion of the feelings^ affection^ and active powers, without any illusion or erroneous conviction impressed on the understanding." That is, it is not a form of insanity at all, according to either the legal or common sense meaning of its term, and ought not to be called such. The tokens of " moral insanity" are stated to be — particular openness in conversation, and proneness to talk over your private affairs, inordinate selfishness, preferring your own case and interest on all occasions, not keeping your promises and breaking through yo.ur obligations, want of natural affections, dislike to near relatives, making purchases for which yon cannot pay, a craving appetite for fermented liquors, and no regard for morals and decency, at the same time there being no defect of reason and understanding. The man is knowingly led captive by his passions without trying or being able to resist. This is " moral insanity" as defined by Pritchard and others, but which ninety-nine men out of every THE NIAGAllA CHURCH CASE. 99 hundred, will at once pronounce to be a " moral humbug" and no insanity at all, but only the frailty and evil of our corrupt unregenerate nature. I may quote an extract from a work recently published by Sir Benjamin Brodie^ the Queen's Physician, on the subject, which proves the accountability of persons affeclod with " moral insanity," and slates that " those who maintain the doctrine, often apply the term to cases to which the name of insa- nity ought not to be applied at all," and goes on to remark : — "If we are not to confound merely mischievous propensities with illusions, we are not to admit the mere existence of an illusion as being in all cases an excuse for crime. A thorough going socialist may be conscientiously persuaded that the unequal 'listribution of property is contrary to religion and morality. The convictions may be so strong that he not only disregards, but cannot comprehend, the arguments which satisfy men of sober sense, that his views are erroneous and absurd. Is this anything more or less than an illusion ; and if under its influence, he were to appropriate to himself his neighbour's, or abet others in taking it for themselves, is he, therefore, to be regarded as not responsible for what he does ? it being borne in mind that the object of human punishment is, not to revenge society on the malefactors, but to deter others from following their example. There are many dogs whose natural and original instinct leads them to run after and kill sheep ; but a proper discipline teaches them that they are not to do so, and counteracts the instincts. There are, undoubtedly, instances without number of illusions, which not only have a firmer hold on the human mind than this particular instinct in dogs, but which neither argument nor discipline can remove or even control ; and surely there is no reason why those of the latter class should not be overruled by means analogous to those that overrule the instincts of the brute." This is undoubtedly sound reasonmg. The co existence of any form oiinsc.nity and sound reason in the same individual is a paradox, which all the ingenuity of the advocates of this strange doctrine can never demonstrate or explain. What is insanity ? Why, defect or loss of reason. What is " a per- version of feeling and affection," unaccompanied by any illusion or erroneous conviction of the understanding?" Why simply depravity of mind — what our courts of law call crimes^ and our Theologians call sin. The ablest judges, lawyers and writers on medical jurisprudence have unanimously rejected the plea of " moral insanity," offered in extenuation for unlawful conduct. The possession of reason is what makes human accountability, and the want or defect of it, the excuse 100 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. for error or crime. The safety of society as well as the laws of truth and justice, demand that every nnan shall he held ac- countable for all offences committed in a rational state of mind. To argue to the contrary is to confound all just ideas of right and wrong, and turns society upside down. This plea of "moral insanity," we know, hus been u^icd by lawyers des- perate of a defence, for their client, ft was recently made for the forger Huntingdon, in New York. " who felt an irresistible propensity to forge cheques on banks;" but the judge very justly scouted the plea out of court, and sent Mr. Huntingdon to the State's prison. Sir, if a man who has committed an unlawful act knowingly, with his eyes open, is pot to be held accountable, it is time to call gaols no longer places o( punish- ment for criminals, but lunatic asylums for rational persons afflicted by the Almighty with irrepressible propensities to steal, rape, kill and burn. Sir, what is such a doctrine but downright materialism and blasphemy against the Creator who has endowed man with reason and conscience to ffuide and govern him, the possession of which faculties makrt him a responsible being? If Mr. Green was in possession of his reason, sound and unimpaired, as every body knows he was, and as Dr. Campbell himself owns he was, how dare the Bishop assert thai he was not accountable for his act ? Is it not fearful to see the heads of the Church of England in Canada admitting ihe materialist's plea, that sin and depravity are due to corporal causes .-• that they arise, in a word, from " moral insanity ?" What is the use of preaching and praying if the doctors are the right parties to restore men to morality and Irulhi'ulness by physicking the blood and operating on the nervous system ? Such is practically, the moral doctrine now adopteil by Mr. Dean Fuller and the Bishop of Toronto ! If, as Dr. Campbell says, the Rev. Mr. Creen is possessed oi sound reason, though moralltj insane, I would like to hear on what ground the Bishop will deny his accountability? F'or it is his accountability more than his state of mmd that concerns the public. If he was a rational being he was acconnfablr, and if accountable, the Bishop has committed a gross breach of trust towards the Church Society funds in awarding liim £200 per annum pension out of that fund. I shall leave his lordship and the rural dean to gel out of this difficulty as best they can. The fact is, that Dr. Campbell has presented the opinion to the Commissioners that the case was •' moral insanity." The other two doctors have, on a written ease submitted t6 them, given their opinion in favour of "dementia." The Bishop and the Commissioners act on the latter opinion, and pension Mr. Creen because he is, by them who wevcr sau; him, pro- THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 101 nounced to be of unsound intelllect, which Dr. Campbell has ever denied, and still denies intoto! There are many other Jesuitical points in Mr. Fuller's letter that ought to have the kinks taken out of them, but at present let thi!> suffice. Perhaps other writers will show him up in a style that I am unequal to. I remain, yours, JUSTITIA. March 27, 1857. {To the Editor of the Olobe.) " Nemo mo Impunc laceasit." Sir, — About a week ago you published a letter headed as above, and signed Henry Dunbar Reynolds, in which a very free use is made of my name. Now, I am not conscious of having injured the writer of that letter in thought, word or deed ; but have ever treated hitn with the courtesy due to his position. Why therefore, I mky ask, should he, while endea- Touring to vindicate his own conduct, have thus unceremoni- ously dragged me before the public ? 1 have nevci in any way offended him, yet he attempts to hold me and my professional opinions up to public ridicule and scorn. Let me premise, that I have no connection whatever with the Church of Eng- land. It is no part of my duty to remove any scandal or stain that may be thought to have fallen upon her good name. It in no manner rests with me to defend the course that has been pursued, either towards Mr. Creen, or towards Mr. Reynolds. I leave to those whose acts are called in question, to vindicate their own proceedings. All that I have to do is to defend myself. I will not impose upon your readers tho loathsome task of going over the tissue of obscene ribaldry which Mr. Henry Dunbar Reynolds has thoLi«ht it not unbecoming his late posi- tion as a clergyman lo obtrude upon the public. I shall con- tent myself with noticing one of his many mis-statements, as it is a matter, not of opinion, but of dates ; and abundant and ready proof can be furnished, of his wilful perversion of the truth. He asserts (I give his own words) that: "Dr. Campbell knew all about the Mrs. L letter, and its contents too, more than a year before the first Commission sat — and often and mer- rily did he laugh over the affair, with a celebrated Major Browne that figuretl sometime in the town ; Browne and Campbell frequently saying to the gentleman who was in possession of the precious epistle, that — It was too good a secret to keepP 102 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. Now, what reliance can be placed upon the statements of this ex-clerical adventurer, when it is shewn th he was fully aware of the following facts ? — 1st. That Major Browne absconded from Canada in June 1855. This Mr. Reynolds well knew, as he subsequently resided in the house that had been occupied by Major Browne. 2nd. That the very first I ever heard of the letter in question, was a year and three months afterwards, viz., on the 24th September, 1856 — only two days before the Commission sat, at the same time, in fact, that it became known to every one in Niagara. This latter fact was equally well knov/n to Mr. Reynolds, as I told it to him myself in the month of October, 1856 ! • It did not, however, suit the purpose of Mr. Henry Dunbar Reynolds to tell the truth ; what then would have become of his " too good a secret to keep ?" No ! our modern Thersites would have been sorry to lose so good a chance of venting hit ribaldry. The other statements of Mr.*Henry Dunbar Reynolds, as fat at least as they refer to me, are either as totally destitute of foundation as the above, or at all events are so distorted by the prurient imagination of this outcast from the Church of Rome^ that it was with some difficulty that I could discover to what they referred. I do not consider this a fit occasion to explain my views as to the form of insanity of which I believe Mr. Creen to be the subject, but 1 am quite prepared to defend my opinions in any place proper for such disquisitions. I shall, however, take this opportunity to state, that in a letter that appeared the other day in the Globe^ signed " Justitia," the writer has misrepresented my views as to the accountability of the insane generally. He has led your readers to believe that I think impunity ought to be extended to every form of insanity. Now " Justitia" well knows that I have always maintained that the security and WKLIi-BEINO OF SOCIETY DEMAND, THAT NO FORM OR DEOREG Or INSANITY SHORT OF RATING MANIA OR ABSOLUTE IDIOCY, SHOULD EXEMPT FROM THE PUNISHMENT DUE TO CRIMES.* This may bc thought harsh, but the community is becoming daily more and more convinced of the great danger arising from the impunity accorded to insane criminals. I am. Yours truly, D. Campbell, M. D. Niagara, 1st April, 1857. • Obaervo, the Dr. contradicta himself — page 78. Honest man t THE NIAGARA CUURCH CASE. 103 (' {To the Editor of the Globe.) Niagara, April 6th, 1857. Sir, — Having seen a letter signed D. Campbell, M.D., in the Globe of the 4th instant, in which the writer endeavours to invalidate my statements concerning the part he played in the pious fraud enacted in St. Mark's Church upon the 5th of January, when the saintly archdeacon Bethune and the land speculating rural dean Fuller " agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord," and impiously knelt down and prayed that the Almighty would guide and direct their proceedings and then rose up and not only " lied unto men, but unto God," under the solemn sanction of mock oaths, I am unwillingly obliged to appear once more in your columns. I do so in order to push back D. Campbell, M. D., and let him sink down into his proper position, from which by whining school- boy effort he attempts to raise himself. I discovered him pros- tituting his professional character and bending himself to the pure and truthful Commissioners as a dirty tool to work their dirty job with, and as such I spoke of him in my letter. I do not blame this D. Campbell, M. D., for trying to save his tar- nished reputation, but 1 laugh at and at the same time confess that I pity him for the mode he is driven to adopt. He heads his puerile epistle with the line " Nemo ine impune lacessit,*' which he intends to be a prelude on the trumpet showing the character of what is to follow, and then comes the tune itself piped on a baby's whistle. He denies no fact, but simply contradicts my statement with regard to the period at which he became acquainted with one of the facts, namely Mr. Green's letter to Mrs. L . His method of reasoning upon this point is positively almost infant like, and would appear as though it had been framed by one of his morally insane patients. He argues thus : " 1st. That Major Browne abs- conded from Canada in June 1855. This Mr. Reynolds well knew, as he subsequently resided in the house that had been occupied by Major Browne." What does our rustic Escula- pius prove by this ? It certainly does not refute the asserloa that his bosom friend, the notorious bigamist and forger. Major Browne, and he, «Jid not talk over the letter together, for it was THEN in existence and public in their circle. He then proceeds with his next argument. •' 2nd. That the very first I ever heard of the letter in question, was a year and three months afterwards, viz ; on the 24lh of September, 1856— only two days before the Commission sat, &c." This is only assertion, what PROOF does he offer that he first heard of it at this period > 0, here it is. " This latter fact was equally well known to / 104 THE NIAGARA CHrECH CASE. \ Mr. Reynolds, as I told it to him myself (he actually told it to me HIMSELF ! as he does to you now, Sir) " in the month of October 1856 !" This is proof with a vengeance, '*I told it to him myself," forsooth. Why, Sir, the word of D. Campbell, M. D., is not worth much in the opinion of many in Niagara. Allowing the assertion of Campbell for a moment to be true, it serves him but little after all, for if he knew (as he admitted he did) of the letter, even two days before the commission sat, the material part of my sjalement is absolutely proved by himself, that is, that he did "know all the charges which were to be preferred against Mr. Creen," on the day of the investigation (26th Sept). Henry Patfard, Esq., a gentleman than whom none other stands higher in the estimation of all who know him, is my authority for the fact that Campbell did know all about the Mrs. L letter before the time Major Browne, the forger, *' absconded'' from Canada, and that Browne knew of it too. I am surprised that Campbell, speaking of hia quondam friend Browne, should use so harsh an expression as '' absconded," when he himself (ever ready it would seem for honorable work) procured the fugitive an asylum a1 Lewiston, and had him con- cealed by day in a cellar at that place for nearly a fortnight, lest he should fall into the hands of the officers of justice de- Euted by the Comrpercial and Upper Canada Banks to arrest im! I annex a letter from Mr. Paffard, which will tell more upon the subject than I can. I care little whether Campbell pre- fers being esteemed a liar upon one date rather than another — that is whether he wants us to believe that he lied upon the day he wrote to the Olobe^ or the day upon which he boasted before Mr. Paffard of his early knowledge of Mr. Creen^s " impure advances*' to Mrs L . Campbell rings the changes already rung by his compeers about " ribaldry, &c., &c.," but I can afford to be abused by this vulgar doctor. All his acquaintances know how badly a charge of ribaldry comes from him. In a letter in which this Campbell endeavoured to brand me with the charge of falsehood, his ''^purient imagination*^ has been active in proving himself an adept in falsehood. He calls me (and italicises his words in order to make them more emphatic) " an outcast from the Church of Rome." Sir, I dare him to the proof, and defy him to show any evidence that I ever was 'in communion with or had any connexion with the Church of Rome. If the story were true I should not deem it a disgrace by any means, but it is a false and vicious statement of an unprincipled man. I" lisped the noble prayers ^ N ' THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 105 of the church of England at my raolher's knee, and from the dawn of my infancy have been a member of that Church, knowir , little and caring little about any other. T:i vild lie has found its way to the sanctum of an Editor of a p. per in this vicinity, (the WeUand Reporter) and he gra- vely states " if we are not very much misinformed, Mr. Rey- nolds was born, educated, and ordained within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church;" and even goes on to insinuate that I was an aspirant for a Bishopric in said Church ! How is it that men can rave so ? But I suppose it is owing to " moral INSANITY." [ am a stranger in this country and might expect kinder treatment from those insane folks, my chief fault being that although very determined to speak the truth, I must have done something very bad or very good in this case when men combine to hate and malign me. What have I done? Ex- posed vice, and defeated its friends, clerical and medical, when they tried to throw their protecting mantle over it. Sir, the Bishop and his pseudo-dignitaries acted coYruptly 'in the beginning, and when they got into a difficulty, called in the aid of this unscrupulous D. Campbell, M. D., to try and help them out of it. I am Sir, Your obedient servant, Henry Dunbar Reynolds. P. S. Sick and tired of recording the base acts of the parties promoting •' the Niagara Church case,'' I shall not (except greatly pressed) reply in future to any of their vicious epistles, To the Rev. H. D. Reynolds. Rev. and Dear Sir, — In consequence of a letter which ap- peared in last Saturday's Gtobe^ over the signature of D. Carfip- bell, M. D., meant to be a reply to a communication from you to the Editor of that paper, and in which Dr. Campbell char- ges you with having invented the statement that he was aware of the existence of the Mrs. L letter long prior to the 26th of September last, I feel called on to slate some circumstances that gave rise to thai portion of your letter. On the afternoon of the 25th of September, whilst the Com- mission was investigating certain charges preferred against the late Rector, Dr. Campbell seated himself outside of my store, and in the course of conversation several parties congre- gated around, and the Church cast; canne up. Rumor had been busy about a certain letter, and curiosity prompted all to listen attentively to any one who knew anything about its contents. Dr. Campbell then gave the details from memory, with much 106 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. emphasis, and in reply to a question from myself, asking how he became acquainted so well with the matter as to have com- mitted it to memory as I thought it was a profound secret — " No," said he, " Major Browne and William Dickson knew it, — IT WAS TOO oooD A JOKE TO KEEP." From which I pre- sume they became simultaneously acquainted with it. The latter gentleman had it from Major Browne as a great secret, and DID NOT TELL it to Dr. Campbell. The fact of Major Browne being in possession of the secret, and the Doctor having stated that he knew of it long prior to the investigation, can be proved, if necessary, by parties occu- pying a high social position, and of undoubted veracity. I am, Rev. and Dear Sir. Your obedient servant, H. Paffard. {To the Editor of the Globe.) Sir, — I desire to retract an expression in my letter of Ist instant. I called Mr. Reynolds '* An outcast from the Church of Rome " It now appears that Mr. Henry Dunbar Reynolds is really not what he has been generally considered — An Ex- communicated Jescit. This common but erroneous opinion has arisen no doubt, in part from the fact that many of his relations belong to the Church of Rome ; but chiefly, I apprehend, from the demea- nour and proceedings of Mr. Henry Dunbar Reynolds himself. I am, Sir, Yours truly, D. CAMPBELL, M.D. Niagara, April 6, 1857. ADDRESS OF THE MAJORITY OF ST. MARK'S CON- GREGATION TO THE REV. H. D. REYNOLDS. Niagara, May 16, 1857. Rev. and Dear Sir, — The accompanying sum of Forty pounds, seventeen and sixpence, is the balance of the contri- bution remitted to you last month, which has been raised by a number of your sincere friends in Niagara, as a token of their respect and admiration for the manner in which you have upheld the purity of the ministerial office, and the rights of the working clergy of the Church of England, in opposition to the illegal and arbitrary act of the Bishop in removing and silencing you in this Diocese, without trial or open accusa- tions of your imputed offences. Those offences, we, your THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 107 friends, know to be nothing more than your virtuous refusal to countenance immorality, and the vindication of your conduct and your rights as a minister of the Church. It is unnecessary to refer further to the " Niagara Church case," on this occasion. The Resolutions passed by a large majority of the members of the Church on this subject, we'still adhere to, and will continue to do so. It is a source of regret to us and of loss to the Church, that you should be compelled to abandon your sacred calling ?which we know was so dear to you), but we flatter ourselves that abundant success in your new pursuit of the Law, will, in some degree, compensate you for the change. Your friends in Niagara will never cease to feel the warmest interest in your welfare, health and happiness. (Signed,) To the Rev. H. D. Reynolds. Joseph A. Woodruff, William Kirbt, Henry Paffard, and ninety-seven others. REV. MR. REYNOLDS' REPLY. ■^ Toronto, May 18, 1857. Beloved Friends, — With feelings of sincere gratitude I accept the very handsome token of your generosity and friend- ship. I look at it not only as a substantial evidence of your regard, but as a proof that it was a well defined principle which actuated you in the part you took in the late troubles which disturbed St. Mark's Church, Niagara. I am proud of your continued approval of my conduct. You consider and believe that the circumstance which first led to the cruel treat- ment! have received from the Church authorities, was an impulse of conscience, and that every step which I have since taken was in vindication of my rights as a man to act upon and defend the dictates of my heart. Yet if, in defending my- self, it can be proved that I wrongfully charged any one with dealing unjustly towards me, or that I made any statement which will not be borne out by fact, I am willing to apologize. But well assured am i, that no demand to that effect can be made. In taking leave of you, my friends, it is satisfactory to me to know that you all, even to the humblest in the parish, are in possession of'^ the whole of the cause of my removal from amongst you, for you have had access through the press to the full particulars of the '' Niagara Church case." I say that it is satisfactory that all has been fully and openly displayed, for 108 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. it robs the fiend Scandal of the power of whispering the unde- fined tale — seals up the lip of malice, and even drowns "the sly mendacity of hints," forever. You can tell every one that there is nothing in the story but suffering consequent upon wrongs. Absolutely nothing but the fact of an old man fired by the vicious suggestions of a romantic parochial official, taking advantage of his position to crush a young man, simply because he dared to lay bare that, which according to good Church principles it would seem, should have been concealed. Alas! for the health of the Church that cannot bear the bold excision of a diseased member. I should have thrown the palt of secresy over crime — I should have gone behind the curtain and muttered the dirty affair there, but at the same time allow- ed the portion of the Church I served in to wear the lying smile of purity which it possessed not. And why would they have had me to act thus ? To prevent scandal. But I caused no scandal. No, it was not I, but the blundering sages who investigated and conducted the case. In trying the guilty individual and condemning him, they turned upon me and assaulted me for the necessity I had imposed upon them (even while they admitted their belief that 1 acted from conscientious motives) and thereby provoked me to assume an attitude of defence. They had not the shade of any charge to bring against me, but in the absence of such, set on their agents to insinuate the wildest motives for my conduct — and not satis- fied with propagating the silliest stories locally, they let their waspish malice fly on its sharp sounding wing to distant regions, even across the Atlantic ! For we find one of the worthy tools (the Rev. Mr. Dixon, of fjoulh, C. W.), figuring in the London G-uardian of the 1 Ith of March. Truly his was a waspish buzz of the old hollow slander of my having aimed at the rectorship of Niagara, and the stain of that lie upon his soul was misera- bly paid for with the ten shillings and sixpence which, as cor- respondent of the Guardian^ he got for that false and audacious letter. Yes, superadded to the first wrong they inflicted, they have, all through the entire nfFair, endeavoured with peculiar and crafty ingenuity to r6b me of public sympathy, by trying, with refined sophistry, to brand me with the base imputation of selfish motives for my actions. Do these men imagine that because their wisdom deemed the course they pursue expedient, that their craft can elude the all-seeing, heart-searching eye of God ? Ur have they not read and learned that he " will have truth in the inward part;??" and whatever they may think of their superior art in governing his church, he needs not their guile to uphold it. But in seeking to impute to me selfish views, how miserably have they failed ! Even hatred, with r'5'? " y^-:>' ,■■■■7' THE NIAGARA CHUIICH CASE. 10» X its microscopic power, could not point out so as to establish it, the smallest granule of suspicion that I was an ambitious junior looking for promotion. I must here allude to the grati- tude which I feel, and which I know all you who have identi- fied yourselves with me feel, towards the large and respectable portion of the Press for ihe generous way in which it upset this ridiculous* calumny. The endeavours of the Press, combined with your own heart-appealing resolutions at your Vestry Meetings, together with the Rev. Mr. Torrance's manly and independent letter, sets that question at rest for ever, except on the dishonest lips of a few who would rather pretend not to be convinced, lest it should rob them of an excuse for hating. I know that a generous public sympathises with me ; I know, too, that the bulk of my brother clergy sympathise with me ; but they, poor dependents, dare not speak out, lest the bread might be snatched from the mouths of their wives and little ones. But there must be a deep and burning indignation in the hearts of free and virtuous men, in an enlightened country Mke this, when they think that there is one m;;n in their midst who, even without the semblance of law, arrogates to himself the right of trampling an individual down to the dust, and not only taking from him the liberty of pursuing his legitimate calling, which took him years to acquire, but actually of pre- venting that individual from [)reaching the Gospel, who, it would seem, in solemn mockery was asked at ordination if he believed the Holy Ghost moved him to i^reach it. What is the meaning or value of the question, if that inward action of the Holy Ghost moved him to preach it ? What is the meaning or value of the question, if that inward motion of the Holy Spirit is of so unimportant a nature as to be chilled and blown back to its Divine origiri at the capricious breath of man ? / Verily a bitter termination has come to my hopes. With solemn prayers to my Saviour — with a fixed determination, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to be faithful in the sacred duties I was undertaking, I put on the surplice ; and now after a brief space of less than three years, I must put it off, for it literally comes to that. The Bishop of Toronto refused to furnish me with a charge, except such an obscure one that a person who did not know how to discern right from wrong could do no harm in it, and even this on conditions in themselves degrading. And he further endeavoured to force me inio this penal settlement by refusing to give me letters tes- timonial to proceed elsewhere, to look for a bit of bread, and leave to minister at the altar of the Lord. There is a rule amongst bishops which causes them to require a clergyman entering their diocese to present testimonials from the bishop .,** 110 THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. under whom he last served, no matter what hia apparent qua- lifications may be. Etiquette would restrain oil her of the other two bishops in this Province from giving me a charge under them. But I appeal to them, what an unholy thing this etiquette is, which prevents them employing a man to whom one of them has said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost," &c., and causes them to close those lips which they, deeming themselves successors of the Apostles, commissioned to go and preach the glad tidings of salvation to mankind. I would not be misunderstood as reflecting upon either of the dignitaries I have alluded to, especially the Bishop of Quebec, for whom I entertain a filial regard. But in their persecution of me there is a difficulty which the authorities, with all their sagacity, do not seem to have remem- bered. It is this : I am a man in priest's orders, solemnly commissioned to preach ; yet, although not suspended, not even tried or put upon my trial, nor yet any specified offence named or laid to my charge am, through the ill temper of a single individual, driven to secular pursuits. Does that indi- vidual believe that when he has ordained a man or consecrated a church, if he or another bishop takes a dislike to the dispo- sition of the one or the architectural design of the other, that he can fling them back to worldly purposes ? Is it thus that a divine right, asserted to be derived directly through the Apostles, and transmitted to me by the laying on of Episcopal hands, is to be made a nonentity? If by their right as suc- cessors of the Apostles they commissioned me, by what right do they recall that commission? When did the Apostles withdraw a commission from a labourer in Christ's vineyard who had '• a good report of them which are without!" Ah! the Church of Rome gleams out here through the thinness of their garments. It is an infallible will — an uncontrollable right of action. If separating a man for the work of the ministry be a Divine or Apostolic institution — if the imposition of hands at ordination be a solemn and holy transaction, transmitting Christ as represented in the visible church " to the end of the world," what power can an individual (though a bishop) through caprice or an error, caused by senile incompetency, render ordination void ? Yet Bishop Strachan would have it so. He says to me, " You shall never officiate in my diocese ; and, by virtue of the arbitrary power I assume, I will not give you Letters Testimonial lo go elsewhere." There is nothing left for me, it would seem, but to fall into the secular ranks. If the repudiation of holy orders be not blameless, let the res- ponsibility rest upon those who have treated their sacredness with indifference. I cannot place my letters of orders on a table ■f THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. Ill ese ; give hing nks. res- ness able , / and dine on the contemplation of them. I must live. 1 did, here- tofore look upon it as somethingakin to sacrilege for a man to lay aside the priest's garb and turn again to the v/orld ; but I am now taught by the Bishop of Toronto to consider it as a trifle. The arbitrary conduct of this old gentleman puts me in mind of a passage in one of Maxwell's novels, in which an irascible Irish priest is thrown into a frothy slate of excitement by a young girl and thus vents his arrogance: — "And you, Miss Biddy, that I christened Sophia, to make you genteel, troth, I'll unchrislen you Biddy." Is it not exactly like the Bishop of Toronto unpriesting me, as it were, because I happened acci- dentally to vex him ? But though the one only aimed a blow at Miss Biddy's gentility, the other absolutely robs me of my lawful calling and position as a minister of Christ. And all this arrogance is founded on the assumption of a power derived from the Apostles ! Oh ! holy band of men ! how would your gentle spirits grieve if you saw your representative and succes- sor, the Bishop of Toronto, corrugatin<2[ his frosty brow— flinging - aside the soft, calm dignity of Christianity, and spurning a man whom he could not help acknowledging to be a commis- sioned minister of the Gospel. Spurning him for what.'* For immorality ? For drunkenness ? For falsehood ^ For hindering God's word, or demoralizing the flock over which he pretended to watch } No, for none of those things ; but for openly declaring hia abhorrence of such practices, remembering only that there was a God above who would visit such doings with his ven- geance, and forgetting for a moment that there was such a thing as a Bishop in the world. / There are many features and episodes in the history of my persecution which have not been revealed, owing to the arch slyness of my enemies. I could furnish a score of these little passages. 1 will, however, just submit one, which, while it serves to illustrate the character of the Bishop's secretary, will tend to raise the scorn and disgust of serious minds. It is this : — Previous to any of the transactions in the " Aiagara Church Case" being published, I had an interview with the Secretary,* Mr. Grasetl, for the purpose of requesting him, in his official capacity, to lay before his Lordship my desire for Letters Tes- timonial. During the course of that interview, Mr. Grasett tried, in his most insinuating style, to make me cover the Bishop's indiscretion by acknowledging that it was I who was indis- creet. " Withdraw your letters to the Bishop," said he. *' There is no reason why I should," said I ; " they are not disrespectful letters, but quite the reverse." " No matter, withdraw them to please his Lord:*hip." " Yes, but this would be acknowledging that I was wrong in the matter, and 112 THt NIAGARA. CllURCU CASE. the Bishop right, whereas I know he is wrong." " Well, I know he is too, but yoa must give way ; you know he is the Bishop, and you are a young clergyman." " Mr. Graselt,'' said I " if I were to withdraw these letters, and express my regret for having written them, I would be violatingmy own conscience, and telling a direct falsehood. Under these circumstances, would you have me do so?" "Certainly; you must not LET THE Bishop appear to be wrong. Ah ! your notion of things is too high ; you have not enough of the serpent in you. Now, only I have so much of the serpent in me, I could not get on as well as I do. If you had come tome inthe beginning 1 would have prevented your difficulties." Think of that, my friends. " You have not enough of the serpent in you !" Would you have the serpent coiled up within the folds of the surplice — a garment which is white, to represent purity ? I stake my claim to veracity forever on the truth of this statement. Perhaps Mr. Grasett wiU have the hardihood to deny it ; perhaps he may sophislically interwine the X- chap, of St. Matthew, ver. 16 ; but, oh ! my friends, could you have seen the sly way in which, at the moment the words were expressed, he closed his study-door, and observed the shrewd twist of his features, you would perceive that the text alluded to above would not avail him. True indet^d, the Secretary might say that he had much of the serpent in him. The whole train of the proceedings was serpent-like. What could be more so than the late Commission of Enquiry — the way it was got up — its privacy — the mock certificates of the veval doctor — and the false and hypocritical tone of Mr. Rural Dean Fuller's report? But I will not now dwell upon this. We have made the doctor contradict and make a fool of himself in the letters he subsequently wrote, attempting to prove his position — (he was too late in the field with his moral insanity, that vile fraud on common sense being thoroughly exploded by the Press all over the world) — and you are aware that all members of his own party upbraid Mr. Fuller Tor the clumsy and ill-disguised falsity of his report. To complete the work the authorities have commenced, they are bound to recompense Doctor Campbell for the position he has lost in the estimation of honest men, by using their interest to get him some good appointment. And as for Mr. Creen, they must send him away — they dare not let him remain in the country a living witness of their falsehood. Farewell, my friends. In the hour when oppression fell heaviest upon me your generous conduct told me that I was not left lonely or friendless. God moved your hearts to cheer the humble labourer when they who had a right to encourage cast X" * :? X" THE NIAGARA CHURCH CASE. 113 him down with ruin written on him. But while you nobly flung yourselves between me and the arm of the oppressor, and indignantly beat back " the insolence of office," you have still done more. You have shown an example to other sections of the Church, called to them to help you In preventing the dignity of the Episcopal character from being confounded with, and rendered contemptible by the assumptive pride and arrogance of an individual. Too often is the glare and strut of tyranny allowed to pass for the majesty of government — and the un- merited indignities which the humble have to bear for the legitimate exercise of power. May the lesson taught by the "Niagara Church Case'' sink deeply into the minds of those whose province it will be to aid in the election of Bishops in this country. Let them spurn those who seek to grasp the mitre to exert domineering rule, turning an office which is so pre-emin- ently intended to be a spirimal office, into one of mere earthly parade, and the exercise of one man power. Continue, my friends, while you admit and support Episcopacy for its reason- -ableness, to tear aside the flimsy and timeworn rags of antiquity, in which some of its professors would envelope it. Tell prelates if they will assert themselves to be successors of the holy Apostles, to prove it, not by assuming authority unsupported by facts, but by exhibiting that spirit of Christ with which the Apostles were endued, in the dignified simplicity of their manner, and the gentleness with which they minister the power of the Eternal King, whose essence and nature is love. Adieu, my friends, driven from the pursuit I have loved so much, by what would seem and does seem to every rational mind a vicious or insane administration of power, i " Some other course my little barque shall sail, And woo the breath of some more favouring gale." ' But Still I will look back from the world to those hours in which I preached to you the eternal truths of God, and offer up a prayer to that throne to which prayer never ascended in vain, for your temporal and heavenly happiness. That God may bless you here and hereafter is the sincere and hearfelt desire of Your faithful and affectionate brother in Christ, Henry Dunbar Reynolds. To the members of St. Mark's Congregation, Niagara. H