BMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 1S6 1^ m 1^ 12.2 I.I f."^ I- 1.8 1.25 i 1.4 ^ V] vl "^ S!^? ^» ■ ,«^- .V ^;. y 4 'k Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STRUT WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716)a73-4503 AVi^ 'mitted from filming/ II se peut que cert^ines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6td possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D D D Q D This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtach^es Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure. etc., ont 6t6 filmdes h nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X lire ddtails jes du modifier ]er une filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grSce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et Je la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. j6es Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commen9ant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration et en terminant par la dernidre paje qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^►(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signi'/ie "A SUIVRE", ie symbole V signifie "FIN". lire Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre filmds A des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seui clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. by errata led to Bnt jne pelure, agon d 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 '•'t^' s p^ \M EPISCOPAL (^((NTROVERSV ; uErxo A 8i:rie8 of LMn ers WIllTTKN IIY'TIFK KKjiPKCI'l VK KI'.IK.NDS OK THE VEN. ARCHDEACON BETIIUNE, D. D. ANli Dr. CRONYN, rector OK LONDON ; TIIK TWO OANDIDATKS hOll THE lUSIIOlM! I( I IK TJrK lUcQtiiii Dinccsc. X^:^. Puicp, Is. HiM .1 'V ^ LONDON, C. W. : PRKK PRESS •■ STRAM PUiNTIN-G MFPICK. North Sthket. 1857. :0 THE EPISCOPAL (^.O^TROVERSY ; i I :iNG J. V SERIES OF LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE RESPECTIVB FRIENDS OF THE VEN. ARCHDEACON BETHUNE, D. D., AND Dr. CRONYN, rector OF LONDON ; THE TWO CANDIDATES FOR THE BISHOPRIC OK THK tUestcru JDioceac. LONDON, C. W. • « FREE PRESS " vSTEAM PRINTING OFFICE, North Strbrt. 1857. iVj : ^ * ■ ' ^iJ^^" i I im i ? ^ I '} 'i ' ' » ' V > * t «* ! ■' o- PREFACE. The followiog pages are a compilation of a geries of letters which, wr.tten by different individuals and at different periods, have lately appeared in the columns of several of the papers through Western (Canada, on the i^ubject of the Episcopate of the Western Diocese. As the electoral element has been for the first time introduced into the Anglican Church, it was to be expected that a canvassing and discussion of the qualifications, &c., &,c., of the candidates whose names have been before the public as eligible for the high office, would naturally follow — whether for the benefit or otherwise of the Church, remains to be proved. All these letters have excited great interest amongst the friendsi and admirers of their respective candidates. A re-perusal of them in a more connected form, before the approaching election, may still be useful towards placing " the right man in the right place." '1 I London, C. W., . e 20, 1857. THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. TO THE CLERGY AND LAY DELEGATES OF THE PROPOSED WESTERN J)10CESE. Sir, As we have reason to hope that we shall shortly be called upon to proceed to the election of a Bishop, we deem it not inappropriate to inform you of the course we intend to pursue. In doing so, we are actuated by no desire of dictatinu; to you, or of influencing you to act in opposition to your own judgment; but simply by a sense of the duty which, at this solemn crisis, we believe to be incumbent upon every faithful son of the Church, not only to give his vote irrespective of all personal preferences, in accordance with his honest convictions, but also to speak a word of counsel, when he thinks it may tend to the good of that holy cause which we all have t heart. Believing it to be the wish of a decided majority of the clergy and laity, that our future Bishop should be selected from among the clergy of Canada, we have anxiously and impartially considered the qualifications of all, whom we thought to possess any claims to be selected for so high and responsible an office. After mature deliberation we have resolved to give our support to the Venerable A. N.Bethune, D.D., Archdeacon of York, and Rector of Cobourg, and have formed ourselves into a Committee for the purpose of pro- moting his election. The following, we conceive, are among the Venerable Archdeacon's claims : 1. His long and zealous services. A Canadian by birth, and ordained in this Province, his whole ministerial life extending over a period of thirty-three years, has been devoted to the service of the Canadian Church, 2. His earnest performance of the duties of a Parish Priest. Placed in an important and extensive sphere of duty, the success which, by God's blessing, has attended his ministrations, and the respect and attachment of his flock, are the best proofs of his activity and faithfulness. 3. His experience. Selected by the Bishop of the Diocese for the important office of Archdeacon, he has enjoyed ample facilities B 6 THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. for becoming acquainted with the wants of the country, and es- pecially of this wef^tern portion of it, which has been included in his Archdcaconr)'. 4. His long official connection with the proposed new Diocese. Maintained as this has been, we believe, to the satisfaction of all the clergy, it gives him a peculiar claim to the elevation ^e desire for him. To overlook one connected with us so closely, and in the highest position which he could hold next to the Episcopate itself, would appear like a want of confidence, and be an indirect imputa- tion upon the wisdom and judgment of our revered Diocesan who .selected him foi* that position. 5. The oneness of sentiment between him and our present Bishop. There are certain interests and institutions, — our Church Society, our College, the future appropriation or division of the Fund arising from the Commutation of the Stipends of the Clergy, — which will be for a long time common to all the Dioceses in Upper Canada, and in the maintenance and management of the.se, it is of the highest importance that there be perfect unity and harmony of sentiment between the overseers of each. 0. His theological attainments. As the Head of an Institution for training theological students, as a writer and as a preacher, ho has given evidence of solid and extensive theological learning, united with great felicity of expression. The degree of Doctor of Divinity has been conferred upon him by two distinguished colleges in acknowledgment of these acquirements. 7. His knowledge and habits of business. The offices which he has filled as Archdeacon, as Chaplain to the Bishop, and as Vice-President of the Diocesan Church Society, have caused many details of the Episcopal administration of this extensive Diocese to devolve upon him; and he is favorably known for the administra- tive tact, the punctuality, discretion, and sound judgment which he has brought to bear upon every matter that has been entrusted to him . 8. His sound yet moderate views in regard to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. While we avow that one of his chief recommendations to us is his steady adherence to the sound princi- ples which we believe to be those of the Bible, and its best inter- preter, the Book of Common Prayer, he has ever enunciated these in a conciliatory and moderate tone. And we cannot doubt that, as our Bishop, he would be the father and friend of all, and not of any party, and would act towards all his clergy with perfect impar- tiality and toleration, proving in this respect a worthy successor to our present beloved Diocesan. There are other points of which we might speak ; but as they involve qualities without the possession of which we cannot con- TUB EPISCOPAL rONTUOVRRSY. and es- uded in Diocese. r)n of all ire desire d in th(! te itself, imputa- san who present * Church n of the Clergy, jceses in of these, nity and istitntion icher, ho learning, Ooctor of I colleges es which , and as 3ed many )ioce8e to ministra- which he d to him. trine and his chief id princi- est inter- ted these ubt that, nd not of 3t impar- 3cessor to t as they mot con- ceive that any man would be named for the office of a Hishop, it is not necessary that we should dwell upon them. Wc may however mention that the Venerable Archdeacon has two sons pr^^ taring for the ministry, a rare occurrence in ('anada ; at once tesr.rying his love for the Church, and proving that he is " one that rulcth well his own house." In conclusion, we invite you to receive these remarks, as they are made, in a fair and (Christian spirit; to weigh them well and seriously ; and to act upon them as your conscience may lead you, not without prayer to the Almighty Head of the Church that he will guide you and direct your choice. AVe have the honour to be, Sir, Yovr faithful servants and brethren in ('hrist, AimAiiAM Nelles, Missionary to the Grand River Indians. Frederick Mack, Rector of Amherstburg. Ajjam TowNJiEY, Incumhcnt of PariR. J . (j . R. Salter, B. A. , fncumbent of Samia. Edward H. Dewar, M.A., Rector of Sand- tcich, Secretary. TO THE REV. ABRAHAM NELI.ES. Rev. and Dear Sir, — As your name stands first on the list of five clergymen, who have "formed themselves into a committee " to promote the election of the Archdeacon of York to the bishopric of the proposed Western Diocese,! take the liberty to address to you the few observations which I hereby submit. I have read the address issued by the committee, and have adopted the suggestion to " receive your remarks," I hope," in a fair and christian spirit, and weigh them well and seriously." In doing so, the conclusion at which I have arrived is the very opposite of that which, I presume, you would have desired; and if, in accounting for this result, I trench upon the delicacy which I could have wished to observe, I must plead in excuse the initiative taken, and the precedent furnished by Dr. Bethune's friends. An insufficient apology, no doubt more especially as I believe it was generally understood by the clergy that personal reflections and invidious comparisons were carefully to be avoided in the election of our bishop. From such a course some of your colleagues, in dealing with their brethren, have fearfully departed. In an 8 THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. unsparing measure they have disparaged some, and no less copiously have they panegyrised others. I must study a more modified course, in entering upon a discussion which these proceedings and your late address have forced upon me. With respect to the address, its strains are in a tone marvellously changed and adroitly chastened. So far I hail the improvement, but I no less dissent from its specious pleadings. To discuss them seriatim would be tedious, but you will bear with me, I hope, while I review for a little, some of the statements vhich have been advanced, a tasii I never should have undertaken, had not your friends, aggressively, and as if in defiance, invited the scrutiny. The first plea in favor of Dr. Bethune is, '' his long and active services," a pretension surely which also pertains to many of his brethren. The next, is an appeal to nationality. That is to say, the Revd. Messrs. Townley, Salter, Dewar, three Englishmen, and Revd. Mr. Mack, an Irishman, for- sooth plead the superior pretensions of Dr. Bethune, because born in Canada, ordained in Canada, and am I wrong in saying, of Scotch parentage. Surely these gentlemen calculate largely on the credulity of ** the clergy and lay delegates !" this circumstance, moreover, taken in connexion with the fact that these gentlemen, not very long since, pressed as ardently upon the notice of this diocese, the names of two clergymen, one after the other, both of whom were born, ordained, and resident in the old country. They further argued that, "to elect one of her distinguished sons as our first bishop, would be a graceful act towards our mother church." I desire not to depreciate Canadians ; my sons are Canadian born, and the first principle I inculcate on them, as regards citizenship, is not that they were born here, or born there, but that they stand in a world of men, and by the providence of God, under the British flag, to win their way under the divine blessing, as Anglo-Saxons. Permit me now, sir, for brevity sake, to be a little categorical on some of the points contained in the address. 1. The Archdeacon's "performance of the duties of a parish priest." 2, His position as head of " the institution for training theological students. ' 3. " His degree of Doctor of Divinity." 4. " His theology." o. His pretensions to the episcopate, "because he is at present the Archdeacon." 6. " His acquaintance with the wants of the country, especially this western portion of it." 7. "The oneness of sentiment between him and our present Bishop." 8. " His connexion with the Church Society, college, the future appropriation or division of the funds arising from the commutation of the stipends of the clergy, &c." You lay stress on the " importance of unity and harmony of sentiment," in relation to these things, " between our future overseers." Suffer a few questions on these THE E]»1SC0PAL CONTROVERSY. 9 copiously id course, and your Idress, its hastened. 3 specious but you ae of the »uld have detiance, 3thune is, hich also appeal to y, Salter, iman, for- ause born of Scotch ! credulity moreover, very lone; the names rere born, er argued it bishop, desire not I the first not that u a world to Permit some of h flag. a parish training )ivinity." , '^because e with the it." 7. Bishop." he future amutation nportance so things, 3 on these ,' heads. 1 trust I shall contiue myself to matters of fact, and to things involved in the address which the ''clergy and lay delegates" are so contidently invited " to weigh well and seriously." 1. What induced the violence which led indignant parties to destroy the imagery erected on an altar in Dr. Bethune's new church inCobourgl!' 2. What occasioned the severance of three theoloirical students from the training institution at Cobourg ? — YouT' men who are now exercising their ministry in the church, one in this new diocese, the other two in places of high 'ecclesias- tical trust in England. W^tis not their separation from Cobourg caused by the inculcation of tenets which they could not conscientiously receive? o. A\'hat "distinguished colleges" con- ferred on the Archdeacon the degree of D. D., " in acknowledge- ment of his acquirements V Was it Oxford, Cambridge, Trinity (College, Dublin, or any principal university in Europe i* 4. The Archdeacon's " theology," what explanation do the committee give of his published and oft (expressed palliations of the teachings of Dr. I'usey, "the Tracts for the Times" and tractarians, who have long since gone to Home i* What of his vindications of the cele- brated sermon oi J)r. l*usey, on account of which that personage was suspended from preaching in Oxford University ? Are not these things to be weighed ? Why have they been omitted in the juldress ? Has it been from an apprehension that they might prejudice the efforts for Dr. Bethune's elevation. 5. Does his position as Arclideacon give him " a peculiar claim," and establish as a se(iueuce his right to be our new bishop ? What occasion then for an election y The approaching proceeding becomes a mockery ! 6. " His acquaintance with ihe wants of this country, especially this western portion of it." True, he has been Archdeacon for about fifteen or sixteen years ; will the committee obligingly state how many weeks during that period he has passed in these western parts i* He has visited some of our principal towns three or four times, and has less frested and neutral Dse rival clergy- and biased arc chi'istian ajtirif" geutleman'H let- •nnicH, according ion, of acknoic- posifioa hi] this this immaculate Fas penning his lestions? 3Iost :s, partake more rs of perception, [possibility to do xwing a compar- candidate," and Surely he must nd lay dc/ct/atcs iions might have ) follow the i^jse d a disagreeable :)f Dr. Bethune, essive and ijuaai irform that task, hiin — viz : the f his favorite as Kas neglected to lich has charac- hcr candidate ?" domed and the lally shown and arishioners ? lese means have CO of dissent so piscopal church iiodel ? hite" possesses reliable temper, n him who is to ese ? How is it that he makes no mention of that total abstinence from all questionable money operations, that absence of buying, selling, and speculating, which those who know him best would bo sorry to accuse him of '? Why docs lie not for the benefit of the delegates, assure them, that his teachings and exliortations are so much thought of that a stranger would find it almost impossible to obtain a seat, so densely crowded are the benches during his weekly lectures ? Why, I say are not these virtues mentioned, which if they existed, would speedily weigh to the ground the ''moral attributes' of the "other candidate" when placed in the same scale with the " rcligioxis ones" of the Archdeacon of York ? The Kev. gentleman must indeed cajculato largely on the cre- dulity of the " clergy and lay delegates," if he thinks that they are to understand by hypotheses, that the moral and clerical virtues depicted above, arc possessed by his "favourite candidate." His marked silence on the subject, would lead us to suppose he did. 1 shall follow the author's example, and not discuss seriatim, as it would bo tedious, but will review for a little, some of the state- ments which ho has advanced and the questions he has asked. The Rev. gentleman, with an attempt at irony, ridicules the tone of the address he alludes to, as marvellously changed and adroitly chastened. The first plea in favour of Dr. Bethune, which he attacks, is his " long and active service," yet now does he answer it y By merely stating that it was a pretension which also pertained to many of his brethren. May I ask, among the many who can testify as to the " length," how manv can bear honorable testimony to the activity oi iliG services o the "other candidate'/" How many luivc not apathy, hautear, indifference, neglect, estranged and driven from the ranks of Episcopacy into those of Dissent ? Is not that stately building, known in Loudon as the Wesleyan Church, filled with many such ? Is it not a fact tliat there are many, both rich and poor, residing in London, who regularly go to church, but never see a minister in their house from one year's end to another? Is it not a fact, that at his weekly lecture, that some of his warmest admirers and .staunchest supporters are rarely, if ever, seen there ? Where are the cottage teachings, so necessary a part in the duties of an effi- cient miiister of the Gospel ? Where is the extra curate so neces- sary and the payment of whose professional services could be so well aflorded? Echo answers where? In what then does this activity, which we are told pertains to many as well aa to Dr. Bethune consist? Is it, in going into other parishes preaching a ' f'M I I i i ■A i il ' 20 THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. flowery (llscourso, and performing the official ta.sk, iuiposoJ upon him by his Diocesan. The next plea which our llev. friend visits with his wrath is, what he terms an appeal to nntionallty on the part of his committee. He says, the Rev. Messrs. Townley, Salter, l)ewar, throe English- men, and llev. Mr. Mack, an Irisliman, forsooth, plead the superior pretensions of Dr. Bethune, because he was born and ordained in Canada, &c. Why should Dr. Bethune be under-valued, because born and educated in this country '/ What savours so much of nationality, I should be glad to know, as the combination of clergy- men from the Emerald Isle, which exists in this section of the Province, for the purpose of elevating to the dignified post, one of themselves ? Has not the association alluded to deservedly received the cognomen of the "Irish compact?" Verily, and indeed, 1 would remind the Rev. gentleman of the old adage : ^'Pfople who live in ylass housfs should not throw stonea." The next accusation against this formidable committee is, that of inconsistency/, for having, not long since, pressed as ardently upon the notice of this Diocese, the names of two clergymen, one after the other, both of whom were born, ordained and resident in the old country. Has the author so soon forgotten, or must I refresh his oblivious memory, with a history of his own conduct some time since, towards the "other candidate i^^' When the question of a bishopric was first mooted, was he not warm in espousing and advocating the cause of his present favorite, not only in this, but in the mother country ? Am I right in saying, or is it merely Dame Rumor which whis- pers, that the unexpected apparition of a clerical importation from the " Verdant Isle," dispelled the veil from his imagination, and clearly realized as a fact, the improbability of his long cherished ambition, viz : the translation from an uncomfortable and unpro- fitable country cure, to the Rectory which would be rendered vacant by the elevation of the " other candidate to the episcopacy ?" Did he not then openly rise against his quondam friend, and endeavor himself, to obtain from the old country, and elect one of her dis- tinguished sons as our first Bishop, as it would be a graceful act towards our mother church ? How is it then that he has again re- turned to him whom he once discarded ! But has the cloven foot been at work ? He then goes on to say, " I desire not to depreciate Canadians, my sons are Canadian born, &c." I would ask him what more effectual way could he take to do so, than by ridiculing the idea of one of her sons becoming a Bi.shop ? The Archdeacon's performance of ,'11 ta.sk, iuijiosod upon with liis wratli is, rt of hi.s conimittoo. war, throe English- , plead the (superior n and ordained in der-valued, because lavours so much of nbi nation of eleroy- this section of the gnified post, one of deservedly received rily, and indeed, 1 dago : ^^ People who oniinittee is, that of id as ardently upon lergymen, one after nd resident in the cfresh his oblivious time since, towards of a bishopric was nd advocating the but in the mother Rumor which whis- 1 importation from s imagination, and his long cherished fortable and unpro- be rendered vacant plscopacy ?" Did end, and endeavor ect one of her dis- d be a graceful act at he has again re- as the cloven foot ;iate Canadians, my vhat more effectual the idea of one of I's performance of THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 21 the duties of a parish priest, he endeavors to throw cold water upon, by asking the two following questions, 1st, what induced the vio- lence which led indignant parties to destroy the imagery erected on an altar in Dr. Bethune's new church at Cobourg '{ 2nd, what oc- casioned the severence of three theological students, from the training institution of Cobourg ? Was not their separation caused by the inculcation of tenets, which they could not conscientiously "receive?" In answer to these questions, I would most respect- fully ftsk him, 1st, the names of this theological trio, and 2nd, does he himself know the tenets which they so indignantly and con- scientiously repudiated ? Is it not well known that this Tractarian outcry, has been got up in order to serve a particular purpose 't Are not the Archdeacon's religious tenets exaggerated ? Are not moderate high church views, metamorphised by fertile imaginations into ultra-tractarian, in order to bear an odious comparison, with those of the " itUra low candi- date r He next asks what distinguished colleges conferred on the Arch- deacon the degree of D.D. In answer to this, I would ask him, have money, or acknowledgements of his merits, obtained for tLo " other candidate^' his degree of D.D. 'i He next alludes to the " Archdeacon's theology." Does the Rev. gentleman imagine that the theology of the ^^ other candidate" so eloquently and so plausibly perverted, is palatable to every one 'i most assuredly not. If he blames the committee so much for not having explained Dr. Bethune's doctrines, why does be not show them a good example, and give us a striking contrast of the ultra low church views of his favorite '/ Dr. Bethune's position as Archdeacon, giving him a peculiar claim is next touched upon— and he a.sks what occasion for an election if this should establish as a sequence, his right to be our new Bishop ? He goes on to say that a fruitless effort is made by some, to obtain a precedence for Dr. Bethune, a comparative stranger, and that a cold response will be given to these five clergy- men. If their attempts will be so fruitless, and the election of the "other candidate" so certain, does not the wasting so much pen, ink and paper, in ridiculing their futile attempts, approach to a mockery ? Why take any notice of them, and rail with such bitter invective against the claims of the Archdeacon of York ? If the election of the " other candidate" is sc certain, why write such a letter that one almost does not know whether the Rev. Mr, Brough is a friend of Dr. Bethune or not ? Surely he must have antici- pated and courted a careful scrutiny of the ministerial capacity of the " other candidate" ! and that divine has only to thank his D ^^tom.'u.^ . oo THK El'ISCOl'ATi CON'»^ROVERSY. 11 ii i^ i ^W ({uiisi friend, for having his character as a clernynian canvassed, for the purpose of discussing liis eligibility for the future Bishopric. T hope that he will pardon my plainness, and excuse me for say- ing, that many would wish to see infused amongst us, some new element, in order that those painful and disgraceful scenes caused through the influence of party spirit |and lately witnessed, may re- ceive a wholesome check. The other statements of my friend 1 shall not make any comment on, as I consider them of minor importance, and shall therefore conclude with the hope that those who have entrusted to them the (ilection of our Jiishop, will exercise a calm consideration of the respective merits of these two candidates, as they must well know Iiow much is expected from them. Let them remember that it is not merely the interests of the church that denuiud it of them. I an», Sir, t Your obedient Servant, WKSTFJiN LAYMAN Sill, — 7t) the Editor of tin- Loiidon Prototype. I had hoped that the first election for IJishop, held in the Angli- can (Miurch, in (^anada, woiild have been conducted with that moderation and that freedom from personalities, in shoi't, with that restraint which a good cause never fails to inculcate. That there should be differences of opinion as to the choice, and that personal friendships would influence feelings, was only to be looked for, but certainly it was no exaggeration to expect, that while ardent men wou'd warmly espouse the eaii.se of a candidate, they would leave un- assailcd the character of him whom they looked upon with no friend- ly feelings. It is with some regret. Sir, that I find a communication in your journal, which has led me to cease to entertain this reason- able anticipation, and J am the more disappointed from the eircunj- stance of the writer being a clergyman — one, too, who has not the excuse of youth and inexperiiince as an apology. Had this pro- (leeding been provoked, there might have been some palliation for it, but so far as T have been able to watch the ))roceedings of the friends of Anduleacon Bethune, there has not been one word in the least disparaging to the character of any person. The dignified and modest <;ireular ])ut forth by tin; five cl"rgymen of the western portion of the diocese, so-far as tone and language are (considered, is perfectly unassaili'.blc. The only (^)ur.Me tipcMi to those who «lif- nary, % ,SY. [jynian canvassed, for le futurt! liishopric. id excuse lue for say- uongst us, some new 'aceful scenes caused ly witnessed, may re- it make any comment and shall therefore ntrusted to them the consideration of the they must well know ii remember that it is mand it of them. nt, FJiN LAYMAN. ototype. p, held in the Angli- jonducted with that ^, in short, with tluit mlcate. That there e, and that personal to be looked for, but at while ardent men they would leave un- upon with no friend- ind a communication mtertain this reason- ted from the circum- too, who has not the <)j.iy. Had this pro- II some palliation for I ])roceedinu;s of the t been one word in rson. The diji;nified piuMJ of the western UMj^e are considered, n to those who dif- TIIE El'hSCOl'AI, CUNTROVKllSY. 23 fered from its nurommendations, was (o state the claims which they deemed so pre-inninent as to lead them to desire a dift'erent result, to that which it sou<;ht to attalii. \\\\i in place of so actinj;, the Rev. Mr. trough has attacked the character of Dr. licthunc in a way which it is really painful to contemplate. And I feel justi- fied in alluding to a report current, so that it may be denied, if untrue. It is to the effect that J)r. (Ironyn was a party to the attack. 1 say, sir, that such a report is bandied from numtli to mouth. Of its truth 1 know nothini:;, and I leave it to the two clergymen implicated to deal with as they see fit- Under the eight heads which Mr. nnmgh adopts, it is evident that the meaning is insinuated rather than {)lainly put forth. The njason is sufliciently obvii)us, for really it is somewhat difficult to attack the character of l)r. liethune. lie is a man against whom !iot even the semblance of a calumny will stick. He is free from the taint of all <|ucsti()nable money operations. In the discharge of his clerical duties, and in the arduous labours of directing tlie Theological 8emiiuiry, has his whole lifi^ been passed. We may except, however, the period devoted to literary pursuits ; for the Archdearon conducted for years the Church newspaper with great vigor and ability, and has published st)me volumes of sermons, which have deservedly attracted great attention. There was, there- fore, but one point on which cnen the most illiberal criticism could be made, and that was on the score of his opinions. To represent these as extreme was all that opportunity permitted. Among the personal friends of Dr. IJethune the accusation created merriment, for of all men, he is most moderate, avoiding the extremes which many sincere, but ill-judging, parties affect ; and if there is otic point on which his claim is pre-eminent, it is (Ui the score of his matured opinions, which, without luke-warmness, follow the plain, straight path which sincerity and charity point tnit. It is hardly ne(!essary to meet t^rn'ad'm the objections of Mr. l?rough, for some are easily answered. Hut with regard to the degree of Doctor, ll I THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 25 nute particular of re, for this una- 1 assured that the built upon the tic expositions set and formularies. influenced by an hurch, and in the ted her opinions, principles. * ing th: : teaching vith your personal ras always distin- dness." timony of Bishop 1 June, 1844, his sufficiently strong as established at placed under the has prospered far ss which I chief y lion with which it >rofessor, to whom istly due, and are nvho Imve to determine this issue will think verj' eriously of their obligations. Much is expected from them, and i> ll> 28 THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. they should satisfy their own minds of the principle on which they have to act. Our view of the case is, that this cry unfairly raised against Doctor Bethune, has its origin in the fact, that he can be assailed on no other ground. Until it was known that his degree of Doctor of Divinity was obtained at the same College where the Bish- op of Toronto gained his, some sneers were cast upon his attain- ments, the publication of this fact has however, silenced the inci- pient impertinence. And we presume, that the paltry fact of three young men, neither of them marked by more Lhan ordinary intelli- gence or possessing any but common place attainments leaving an in- stitution, will be considered a censure when it is a matter of record that Bishop Strachan, publicly thanked Doctor Bethune, for his conduct of it, attributing entirely to his management its success : and when all the clergy of the Province who were educated there with one exception, presented an address ./O the Principal, recog- nizing his piety, his earnestness, and his evangelical teaching. The thing is too absurd. The third item of unfitness — the altar table — was a matter with which we are told Doctor Bethune, had nothing to do. But it was simply this — some young gentlemen in Cobourg subscribed and presented a communion table to the church, the front of it was divided into compartments. In the centre was the monogram I. IF. S. In each side was a has relief of the imple- ments used at the crucifixion. Parties in the place disliking the design, went in one night and defaced the panels. Next day, or so, the table was removed by Doctor Bethune, and who interfered, not to foment quarrels, but to establish peace, so that his church should not be disgraced by quarrels. And if any blame at all was cast upon him, it was that he had ordered the removal of the table. We have made some efforts to obtain information on these points, as we have considered the attack on Doctor Bethune, discreditable to all concerned in it. Indeed, the Archdeacon has our very cor- dial wishes for his election, for we believe him to be a good, sincere, and able man. To the Editor of the Stratford Examiner. Sir, — The Stratford Examiner of the 7th instant, was yesterday put into my hands, it contains a letter from the Revd. W. Patter- son, with his critique on a communication of mine, addressed to the Middlesex Prototype. I quite agree with Mr. ipatterson, that in making the Press the medium of setting forth my sentiments, it is perfectly legitimate to regard what I advance as public property, and that as matter of course, I subject myself to whatever strictures the pu address of my 1 good p betweer gives h to his se a due s( it. I : details the Ver to be th It will taining by my i what n chargea *'the cr the teac do so, I letter, gentlem advocate to be ou moment our Bisl mittee ¥ proceedi Bethune ulous, ai unless t ad cupU out, the] H Weste contribu while tl But it ii for the another piea of * of these which tl Beem to Uion wb THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY, 29 jiple on which they cry unfairly raised ,ct, that he can be m that his degree of ige where the Bish- st upon his attaiu- ', silenced the inci- paltry fact of three lan ordinary intelli- nents leaving an in- 3 a matter of record ir Bethune, for his gement its success : rere educated there le Principal, recog- angelical teaching, mfitness — the altar )ctor Bethune, had roung gentlemen in table to the church, In the centre was relief of the imple- place disliking the aels. Next day, or ind who interfered, so that his church ly blame at all was smoval of the table. )n on these points, hune, discreditable n has our very cor- be a good, sincere, innner. itant, was yesterday Revd. W. Patter- nine, addressed to Vlr. Patterson, that 1 my sentiments, it as public property, whatever strictures the public may think proper to pronounce conceniing me. In addressing you I take the opportunity to acknowledge tlie courtesy of my Revd. Brother, and to assure hiiu that I take iiltogether in good part what has fallen from his pen. Tlic correspondence between us" pertains to a most important subject. Mr. Patterson gives happy expression to his views of its seriousness. 1 respond to his sentiments, and to the fervency of his desire that we may have a due sense of the magnitude of our responsibilities in relation lo it. I am happy that in this respect wo coincide, wliile in the details of the question we widely diii'er. Mr. Pattenson regards the Venerable the Archdeacon of York, as a lit and proper person to be the Bishop of our new Western Diocese. T think otherwise. It will be sufficient for me to state some of my reasons for enter- taining this opinion, and in compliance with the call made upon mc by my reverend friend, I think I ain ])repared to show, botli from what may be implied, and also ufiiniied, that Dr. Jiethune is chargeable with opinions calculated to raise, what my friend cidls *'the cry of Puseyism," and also with sentiments inconsistent with the teaching of the Church of England. }3ut before T proceed to do so, I must notice some of your correspondent's strictures on my letter. He would represent me as expressing surprise, that the gentlemen who have formed themselves into a committee .should advocate the claims of a Canadian and a resident of tiie Province, ^o be our Bishop. I entertain no such ieeiinus, nor would 1 for a moment presume to say, that a Canadian, as such, ought not to be our Bishop, but I do feel surprised that the gentlemen of the com- mittee whom I named in my letter, taking antecedents in their proceedings into account, should advance the circumstance of .Dr. Bethune's birthplace as a plea for his elevation. ? may be incred- ulous, and perhaps do them injustice, but I cannot persuade myself unless they assure me to the contrary, that it is any other than an ad captanduni argument. And if as ini argument it is to be carried out, then I say as in my former letter, an Eastern for the East, and R Western for the West. I moreover ask wliat has Dr. Bethunt^ contributed to our western endowment, now secured, not a farthing, while the Rector of London has subscribed live hundred pounds. But it is already rumoured that the committee in despair of success for the venerable the Archdeacon, contemplate putting forward another candidate. I agree with Mr. Patterson, that in reality the pica of " Canadian birth " is *' far from occupying in the estimation of these gentlemen" three English and one Jrisli. " that importance" which the prominence they have given to it in tlieir address would seem to indicate, neither was it " the importance" of the consider- ation whether the aspirant to the episcopate pertained to the old or Ill \\\H M i ill ; I ; I ' ! 1 I 30 THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. the new country, thp.t led nie to notice it at the length to which my friend takes exception, but it seemed to me as a stroke at effect, and a ruse to obtain elact for a candidate. Your correspondent complains (I may adopt the following order.) 1. That "I have disposed summarily of Dr. Bethune's preten- sions to the episcopate, founded on his energy in the performance of his parochial duties," that I have dune so by " enquiring the cause of the violence couimitted upon an altar in the new church at Cobourg." I expressed no doubt to his parochial energy, but the question I put implied what I felt, namely, astonishment that any parochial clergyman of our reformed church should allow an altar with carved images to be placed within his chancel, and his doing so would, with me, be a sufficient reason why he should not be our Bishop. Would it be very acceptable to the members of the church at Stratford were Mr. Patterson to do the same ? Would it not very soon put to the test " the forbearance or the violence of parties." So much for my question, but the transaction no doubt, to use my friend's words, " deserves a better criticism," and I am prepared to render it whenever it becomes expedient ; in the mean- time I venture to recommend to the perusal of all concerned, the homily of our church, " against the peril of idolatry," 2. The severance of three theological students from the Cobourg Institution. Mr. Patterson also says, I disposed of Dr. Bethune's merits as theological professor, by affirming that " the separation of these young men from the institution was occasioned by the incul- cation of tenets which they could not conscientiously receive." " Who," he asks, " does not see that the reasoning on this point erects the conscientious convictions of the reverend gentlemen into a tribunal before which the orthodoxy or the heterodoxy of the doctrines taught is to be decided ?" He adds, " is this argument ?" Mr. Patterson has studied logic more recently than 1 have, still f venture in this instance to question his soundness in the science. The facts are simply as follows : — Dr. Bethune objected to the doc- trines of these three gentlemen — their doctrines are examined and approved by the highest authorities of the church, the proof of which is established by their admission to holy orders, one in the diocese of Toronto, one in the diocese of Quebec, and the third in the old country. Then I say, these authorities are the tribunal before which the orthodoxy of the young men is tried, and by which are tested (I shall not say) " the orthodoxy or the heterodoxy" of Dr. Bethune but the tenets he inculcated, and his views of the teaching of our reformed church. So much for Mr. Patterson's reasoning ! Perhaps he may not now be so disposed to think that " the argument in the letter has but little bearing upon the real point at issue." SY. THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 31 length to which my as !i stroke at effeci, Your correspondent 'r. Bethune's preten- >r in the performance by " enquiring the r in the new church arochial energy, but S^, astonishment that 'ch should allow an lis chancel, and his why he should not ) the members of the le same 'i Would it ce or the violence of ransaction no doubt, riticism," and 1 am dient ; in the mean- f all concerned, the olatry." ts from the Cobourg 3d of Dr. Bethune's t '■'■ the separation of sioned by the incul- ientiously receive." soning on this point rend gentlemen into 2 heterodoxy of the ' is this argument ?" than 1 have, still f ness in the science, objected to the doc- s are examined and lurch, the proof of ' orders, one in the 3C, and the third in !s are the tribunal n is tried, and by or the heterodoxy" id his views of the or Mr. Patterson's posed to think that iring upon the real ^ 3. 31r. Fattersou asks mc, are Dr. Bethune's acquirements such jis entitle him to the degree of D. D. ? I answer, I by no means undertake to be the judge in the matter. The llcv. Mr. Townley has said, aye, and I leave it to his higher pretensions, especially as Re pertains to the committee of five, who announce that " they pave impartially considered the qualifications of all," and have de- creed accordingly. This I will say, that if plumage is disturbed, |iot breathings from my lips, but inflations from another quarter f)rigiuated the commotion. 1 have had no desire to do dishonor to '|he Archdeacon's literary status, but I think it as little became his Uupporters to advance it in comparative and ostentatious display. 4. As to Tractarianism, Mr. Patterson writes, " Why, instead of indulging in loose interrogatories, does not the latter take up the paragraph and combat its assertions by a particular induction of facts ?" My questions surely aiford Dr. Bethune's friends a good opportunity to enlarge upon and refute any imputations they may contain, but as your correspondent demands it of me, I shall quote from Dr. Bethune's writings, and leave it to my reverend friend to draw his " particular induction of facts." The doctor, in acknowledging the receipt of the two first parts of the " Tracts for iihe Times," writes, " we hold ourselves indebted to the enterprising individual, be he who he may, who lu, placed these valuable and |)eculiar theological productions so closely within our reach." *' We know that in many — perhaps a majority of instances — the .condemnation of the imputed errors of the Oxford Tracts emanates from individuals who were mere tyros in theological learning." Surely the Archdeacon did not take time to consider when, in the confidence of his own judgment, he designates as tyros the thou- sands of laymen and clergymen who difter from him in opinion. Surely this high-handed decree affords cause of suspicion as to the moderation of his views, yet the committee say "■ these he has ever enunciated in a conciliatory and moderate tone !" Again, he writes, " We liave not merely received with distrust the floating accusa- tions against the heretical tendency of the * Tracts for the Times,' but we have been led to believe that, if /air/// iceighed and care- fully examined, they would be found to contain more truth than ever." Doubtless they would were Dr. Bethune to hold the balance. *' Carefully examined :" a careful examination might, perchance, determine a preponderance of something useful in the rattlesnake, but I should exceedingly dislike proximity to the noxious creature. Again, the Archdeacon writes, '' This vehemence of polemical as- sault — this apparent desire to sweep away with the besom of wrath these emanations from some of the most distiv (jut shed divines of a Protestant and learned University, — was calculated to awaken the I \w 32 TFIE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. i 1 ill i I impression that tiicrc waa uiore zeal than judwnward to Rome; are in numerous Were j^, not, as I r chur..h of a truth, erforce, and others !ts for the Times," indebted," are the not say that the se did Archdeacon 3nnison at first, but it of all to watch. 3r, in his integrity THE EPIKCOPAF, CONTROVERSY. 33 I contemplates not the depths of the Tractarian delusion, he knows not yet its insidious cliaracter, I pray God, that he and his, and the church throughout this land, may ever be preserved from its fallacies and wiles. I do not apprehend that J)r. Bethune will prove recreant to the fatal extent ; my hope and my persuasion is, that he is sounder than his rords ; but still words go forth, impres- sions are made, effects produced, and recall becomes impossible. I connect these circumstances with tlie case I have supposed, namely, Dr. Bethune presiding over a theological institution, or delivering an Episcopal charge in tlie language upon which I have just re- marked. One more objection as called for by Mr. Patterson. Pr. Bethune has set forth that "the canons of councils, the writings of large numbers of primitive divines, and the interpretations of the church, proceed from the same inspiration as the Word of (lod." The Church of England teaches (Articles 19, 20,) that churches have erred not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith, and that general councils may err, and sometimes have erred in things pertaining unto God, wherefore things ordained by them have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture." Are not then the Archdeacon's views (unwittingly, no doubt) at variance, as I proposed to show, with the teachings of our reformed church ? Are they entitled to the encomiums pronounced in the address of the five clergymen, and which Mr. Patterson seems disposed to en- dorse ? Did tlicse gentlemen examine' them for themselves before they invited the clergy and lay delegates " to weigh them well and seriously." I will repeat what I advanced in former letters, that the agitation of these questions, and this unpleasant controversy may be ascribed to the aggressive publications of Pr. Bethune's friends. Painful though it be, I hope it is ordered for good j I regard it not as a dispute about words or men, but a contest for the integrity of our Protestant Church. Mr. Editor, I have already occupied too much of your space, but suffer me to add another word. Mr. Patterson calls on me to quote from Dr. Bethune's recently published Sermon on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. I decline for the present to quote from his recently published works, unless Mr. P. can show me that he has therein distinctly, and intelligibly and manfully repudiated his opinions as set forth in his review of Dr. Pusey's Sermon on the Eucharist, for whic' said divine was silenced in Oxford. T am, &c., '^ '^' • -' CHAS. C. BROUGH. May 11, 1857. • ^ 1 1 ■'I I ! 1 i! i ! )\\ lii 4 t ii I 34 THE EPlsrOPAIi CONTROVERSY. THE REV. Mr. PATTERSON'S REPLY. To the Editor of the Stratford Examiner. Sir, — The Middlesex Prototype, in its issue of the 15th ult., contains a letter from the Rev. 5lr, Brough in reply to luy com- munication which recently appeared in your columns in favor of the claims of the Archdeacon of York to the occupation of the future See of London. Really, Sir, I feel myself highly flattered by the fact that Mr. Brough has condescended to reply to my observations, particularly as his letter, addressed to the Rev. Mr. Nelles, has as I think, already received, through the Press, a far abler notice than it has received from me. Since, however, he has done me the honor of replying to my letter, 1 beg to acknowledge the attention, and to occupy a portion of your space with some remarks upon his last circular. The main point of his first letter addressed to Mr. Nelles, has in his reply to nK>, — us your readers will observe by examining the third paragraph — been fairly abandoned, viz : the point which refers to Dr. Bethune's literary acquirements. And here I must embrace the opportunity of acknowledging the candour of the Rev. gentleman. Mr. Brough evidently possesses a sufficient amount of penetration to enable hiiu to judge how much stress to lay upon an argument. He is too sound a scliolar not to know that Dr. Bethune's literary acquirements, if compared -.vith those of any clergymen within the bounds of the proposed Diocese, be he English, Irish, Scotch or Caradian, would not suft'er by the comparison. In thus suggesting the idea of comparison, I have departed, somewhat from the course which I had resolved to persue, and must in justification, plead the precedent furnished by 5lr. Brough, to which I now invifo his attention. In my previous letter I studiously avoided invidious comparisons and endeavoured to confine our discussion within as narrow bounds as possible But by introducing a direct allusion to the respected Rector of London in the prominent manner in which he has intro- duced it in his letter, Mr. Brough has enlarged the area of contro- versy, and with him must rest the responsibility of the result, 1. Against Dr. Bethune's claim to the episcopate drawn from the fact that he is a Canadian, the only semblance of reasoning which remains is, 'Y. THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 35 REPLY. raminer. He of the 15th ult., reply to my com- umns in favor of the pation of the future hly flattered by the to my observation.s, . Mr. Nelles, has as far abler notice than has done me the riedge the attention, le remarks upon his I) Mr. Nelles, has in t by examining the : the point which And here I must candour of the Rev. sufficient amount of tress to lay upon an i that Dr. Bethune's of any clergymen he English, Irish, uparison. \, I have departed, '^ed to persue, and hed by Mr. Brough, ddious comparisons n as narrow bounds )n to the respected vhich he has intro- the area of contro- of the result, ;opate drawn from lance of reasoning a Western for the ors to invest with innecting particle, hune has not sub- hile the Rector of London has subscribed 2000 dollars. Dignified contrast ! Profound I reasoning ! It is not affirmed that a subscription was solicited from the Venerable Archdeacon, and yet his rejection or acceptance by the Western ('lergy and Laity as their Bishop is, in some myste- rious and inexplicable manner to be associated with the fact of his not having subscribed towards the Episcopal Fund, and then the invidious contrast is drawn. Sir, I disparage no man, I speak harshly of no man. I admire the energy which the able and respected Rector of London and other Rev. gentlemen have dis- played in completing the endowment. But would it not have been better for Mr. Brough's cause had the contrast not been instituted. As an argument it is peurile, as a published statement it is offen- sive to good taste. Sir, my only concern is with Mr. Broujrh's argument, and there- fore I intend no insinuation against any pa."ty. But Mr. Brough's knowledge of the rapidity and case with which affluence may be acquired in this rising country ought surely to induce him to hesi- tate ere he infers that a large subscription is of itself, an infiilliable test of munificence, unless it can be clearly sho-.vn tliat the gift has occasioned inconvenience to the donor, and has drawn largely upon his means. This statement of my Rev. friend is, to adopt his own phraseology, an unmistakeablc ruxc to obtain eclat for a candidate And were the case the reverse, had J)r. Bethune proposed to give jG500 to the fund, and had the Rector of London not given a farthing, what would have been the inference of my learned friend ? t priJtend not to say at what conclusion he he would have arrived. But in this controversy which is every day :'cquiring increased warmth, and assuming ampler dimensions, who shall undertake Lo say that Dr. Bethune's proffered aid would not be represented as a kind of bait to secure the suffrages of the Clergy and Laity of the West? But, Sir, the impression which Mr. Brough wishes to produce by the statement " an Eastern for the East, and a Western for the West" — for he still clings to it — and from the contrast which he puts forth between the Jiberality of the rich man, and the supposed niggardliness of the poor man, will not be received by those charged with the high responsibility of electing a chief pastor for the Wes- tern See. With practical men — with men who duly estimate the importance of the issue of this contest — with men of correct taste and elevated feelings — with men whose best regards concentre in the good of our reformed church, and whose sincerest prayers and warmest wishes are directed to her substantial progress, and to the dissemination of her glorious principles throughout the length and breadth of the land, — with such men the contrast of my respected [I(l (' ll 1 i • n i ( ■ 1 1 V Si ■, i I ' ll ■ i w i w\ 1 {H^'s 86 TIIK ElMSCOPAL i'ONTUOVEKSV. IVionil, and his plea biused upon lot-ality, will be ul' no avail when placMul side by side with the solid artiumeut drawu from ;;reat attain- nicnts, laborious activity, distinjiuislied services, uud — I (juotc from i-liu LcuUtr — " uiiblejuisheil purity of life." li. l"\>r an explanation in reirard to the violence done to the altar in the Arohdeacou's (Uiureh, 1 bejj; to refer the llev. JMr. IJrou^h to the accoujpanyinj^ sUitemeut of facts which you, Sir, had the kindnesH to say you would insert in your next issue. A perusal of it will show how far Dr. JJethune deserves tiie charitable censure covertly contained in Mr. l{roui;h's reconunendation "to all con- eerued to peruse the honnly of tlie church on the peril of idoUitry." The slight irritation of feelinj:; tlisclosed in the (|ue.^tiou he puts with reference to tlu! conduct of the uunnbers of tln^ Church at Stratford uniler supposed cireuuistances, shall not induce lue ti> inipuj^n the motive which he has, either in j)roposin):; the ijuestion, or in drawing; attention to the homily which treats of the subject of idolatry. Uut, Sir, I am certain Mr. Hrough will a^roe with me when I say, that there is an idol against the worslup of whicli it is the duty of all constantly to be on our u;uard ; that there is a shrint; bot(tre whiidi if we studiously refrain from payinj^ our homage, the integrity of our principles will not be impaired : viz., the idol (»f popular applause, the shrine at which those who pander to popular prejuilices are aeoustomed to olVer their adoration. .'1, I shall endeavour to i^how that .Mr. lirough has not fairly met my reasoning in the ease oi' the three revereiul gentlemen who withdrew from the Cobourg Institution. But tirst I must beg his attention io some further light which has been recently thrown upon the subject. It turns out — I «|Uote from a letter by a " Church- man," in the last I'mfotj/pi' — that one gentleman withdrew for the reverse of theological reasons, and that of hiui the less that is said tlu> better ; another was s\ibse(iuently examineil by the Archdeacon and approveil ; the third —tlie llev. Dr. ilelmuth — it appears extnnnely jirobable, never assorted that he withdrew owing to erroneous teaching. So much then for the facts as published, with whioh 1 shall leave Mr. Hrough to deal. And now for the logic of my respecti'd friend. I receive In all the breadth of its meaning the projiositiou, that the venerable pre- lates who admitted these gentlemen to holy orders constitute the tribunal before which to test the soundness or unsouiulness of their doctrines. And 1 beg to keep this proposition tlistinetly before Mr. IJrough for a few moments, and to bring to bear upon it a fact which we shall both, 1 am sure, admit as evidence in the nuitter in <)uestiou. I'ho fact is this : the doctrines to which t]\o three srentlemen THE KIMSOOI'Ali CU.NTllOVKRSV of no avail wlioii fiuui <;i'i';it attain ml — 1 (juutt! I'lMiu (lone to tjjo altar lii'v. Mr. JJrounlj ou, Sir, iiail tin- If. A perusal ut' laritablo cousure itioM " to all con- peril of idolatry." ((Uo.stiou lu! puts f the Church at U)t intluco lue to siiij;' the ijuestion, s of the subject oi' vill a«;ree with nie hip of which it is t there is a shrine i our homaj.;o, the : viz., the idol of pauder to popular has not fairly met d goutloineu who •st 1 must beg his Luitly thrown upon r by a " Church- withdrew for the 10 loss that is said y the .Vrchdeacon ninth — it appears thdrew owiu«^ to uts as published, 1 receive in all lio vonerablo pro- ■rs constitute the nindness of their distinctly bofore 3ar upon it a fact in the matter in throe aientlemen objected were conscientiously received by some oO or tO gentlemen, who, after examination and approval weroordainiul by the Venerable Hishop of Toronto, and are now exercising their nnnistry iu his Diocese. Taking then, the rejection of the doctrines by the three gentlemen, and tiuMr acceptance by iJO or 40, in connection with the fact, that all parties concerned were exatuined, approved, and ordained by the highest authority in the church, what is the logical eonclusiou as regards tlie soundness of the doctrines in (|uestion 'f Is it that the tenets were unsound becau.se rejected by th<* three, or that they were unsound because accepted by the JJO / Here you see the matter in brought to a simple i.ssue. It amounts to a con- test of opposite probabilities between tlu' conscientious convictions of three and of ;{0 as to the soundness or unsoundness of dognui. Observe I do not advance the acceptance of the doctrines by the ;{() as a proof of their soundness. Mut I do hold that the accept- ance, approved as it was by the highest autluuity of the church, overturns Mr. Jirough's argument against the soundness of the teaching; and I humbly submit that the position a.ssumed in my former letter remains untouched, vi/.., that to estimate Dr. IJethune's merits as a Tiieological I'rofe.s.sor by the rejection of his teaching on the part of the three gentlemen is t.t> erect tht^r conscientious convictions into a tribunal, before which the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of doctrine is to be decided. As I i)reviously stated 1 do iu)t know what particular doctrines are alluded to. liut 1 believe it is uni- versally admitted, — 1 am certain at least that Mr. Hrough ami I shall concur in the admi.ssion — that, provided no point strictly fundamental is infringed, — there is a sutHcicntly wide nuirgin left in the dognuitic teachings of the church for slight dittercnees of opinion. In entering upon Air. Brough's fourth point, in which he strives to fasten upon Archdeacon Bethune the charge of Tractarianism, I tnay be permitted to take exception to the course of argunu-nt which has been adopted. If we would ascertain, fully and accurately, the opinions of a writer upon a given subject, we are not doing him justice unless we take iu review the whole of those passages which refer to that subject. It is, as a general rule unfair to select detached piussuges from an author and to draw conclusimis fnun such pa' sages as to what are his real sentiments. JStill nnu'e unfair is it, in order to mantain a specific charge against him, not to quote his precise words, but either to (juote his words in such an order as will suit our purpose or to adopt wtirds of our own and attribute them directly to him, >r as exhibiting wliat we conceivi; to be his real opinions. Again; when a controversialist is bringing home his charge F 1 4' 38 TJIE KPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. it 1 i I IP I 1 against a writer whose opinions he has been combating, it appear» to me unreasonable to apply the author's language to a condition of things different from that in connection with which the words were originally used. If the writer's object was to propound his views, or to tender his advice to parties placed in certain circumstances, it appears to me contrary to all the rules of fair reasoning to apply his observations to parties placed in circumstances entirely different. It is, moreover, much more fair, much more in acordance with the dictates of christian charity, to judge of a clergyman by his parochial or official acts than by his writings as an editor. The former elicit his inborn, deep, and decided opinions ; the latter, in dealing with controverted points, in meeting aspersion and combat- ing falsehood, must necessarily exhibit some changing phases. All is settled and serene in the first case; in the other it is tossed upon turbulent waters. Now, sir, perhaps I shall be able to convince those of your readers who take an interest in this correspondence that the above remarks are, in no inconsiderable degree, applicable to the Rev. Mr. Brough'a i'ourth point, which bears the significant title of "Tractarianism." 1. The Oxford Tracts. It should be remembered that these publications were in the first instance begotten by the assaults upon the Irish church, and the desire so strongly expressed in and out of parliament to abridge her revenue. A few earnest men — chiefly members of the l^niversity of Oxford — thought the best safeguard of the church under her difficulties would be to expound her prin- ciples, and especially to set forth her claims as a divine institution. Ignorance upon these points was believed to be the cause why these aggressions upon the church were in many quarters unresisted. When therefore the first volume appeared — exhibiting in a few popular tracts the church in her true light — there was very general approbation of the intention of these writers and their manner of (!arrying it out. Many men even of evangelical sentiments, not only found no fault with them , but hailed them as an augury of good. They were accordingly thus noticed in the CImrck news- paper of August 24, 1889. <'lu giving so high a character, in general to these publications, we beg most distinctly to be under- stood as not pledging ourselves to an unqualified approval of all that has emanate! from those profound scholars, and eminently pious men. The Oxford Tracts have an apparent tendency to some few doctrines which we deem erroneous, and which we believe are so held by the soundest of our Protestant Divines, — they are also occasionally disfigured by some expressions and sentiments which, to say the least, we consider of questionable lawfulness, and most decidedly inexp«dient. Making, however, these deductions, we THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERST- 39 bating, it appears [e to a condition of ch the words were •opound his viewn, in circumstances, ■easoning to apply entirely different, acordance with clergyman by his an editor. The Ions ; the latter, in rsion and conibat- ging phases. All er it is tossed upon ose of your readers the above remarks !lev. Mr. Brough's 'Tractarianism." bered that these ' tlie assaults upon ressed in and out nest men — chiefly the best safeguard expound her prin- divine institution, be the cause why uarters unresisted, hibiting in a few i was very general J their manner of il sentiments, not 11 as an augury of he Church news- h a character, in ictly to be under- d approval of all s, and eminently tendency to some 3h we believe are fs, — they are also cntiments which, ulnesH, and most deductions, wi* regard the cham})ions of the Oxford Theology as men who have re- stored many a half-buried and forgotten truth to a prominency and injportance to which they have too long been strangers." In the Church of October 19, 1839, the article appeared from which Mr. Brough has made his quotation ; and it was evidently written in conseciuenoe of the many puerile and ignorant attacks which were made upon these writings — and most of these by persons who had never read the Tracts, and perhaps very little the- ology at all. To such as these it was recommended by the editor of the Church to read the Tracts for themselves. But [ may repeat that at this time the Oxford Tracts were, in general estimation, comparatively harmless. Only a small portion of 4 them had as yet been published ; and it was not until some time ;after that the most offensive and insidious numbers appeared. Bishop Bagot, for example, expressed hinuself approvingly of them at first, but on the publication of No. 90, he desired their discon- tinuance. in the earlier numbers referred to in the extract above given, tthcrc was certainly nothing to indicate a tendency to Rome. On I the contrary, in one of those earlier publications, the following expressions occur: "Alas with them (the Papists) a union is im- possible. Their communion is infected with heresy. We are bound to flee it as a pestilence. They have established a lie in the place of (rod's truth : and by their claim of immutability in doctrine, cannot undo the sin they have committed. They cannot repent. Popery must be destroyed ] it cannct be reformed." VVHien the Oxford Tract writers used such language as this, it Avas natural to believe them sincere j and, regarding them as sincere, it would have been hard and uncharitable to stigmatize them as abettors of Popery. What they would afterwards prove it was difficult to foresee ; the fairest course was to treat them as we found them. It was very evident that no feeling existed in the breast of any of the clergy then, that the editor of the Church favoured opinions which were likely to lead to the overthrow or corruption of the Protestant faith. In the summer of 1841, on resigning that office, it was, I believe, unanimously resolved by the clergy, in visitation assembled at Toronto, to present Dr. Bethune with a testimonial indicative of the great and important service he had rendered the church in the management of that journal. And 1 shall bo corrected if 1 am wrong in saying that that resolution wa^ shared in by the Rev. Mr. Brough himself. At the close of the year 1842, it was presented by a deputation in behalf of the clergy, consisting of the Rev. H. J. Grassett, the Rev. R. 1). Oartwright, and the Rev. H, Scadding. Kubsequently to this period the " Tracts hi I '»! ■il 40 TIIK EI»I8C0PAL CONTROVERSY. for the Times" haviiii; bcon suppressed, were rarely referred to; and after his resumption of these editorial duties in 18-43, it will be hard to show that Archdeacon Bethune ever even mentioned these publications, much less expressed himself in approbation of them. Now, J ask have 1 not a fair ground of complaint as to the use which the Rev. Mr. Brough has made of his extract from the editorial articles of the Church paper. They only refer to a small number of the " Tracts for the Times," but Mr. Brough comments upon them in such a strain as to induce your readers to suppose that all the Tracts indiscriminately were approved of by tho editor of the Church, and all regarded by him as valuable additions to our theological literature. Because the editor was suffiniently polite to acknowledge the receipt of the first numbers from the publisher, because he designated some of those who assailed these numbers as " Tyros in theological learning," because in reviewing them he did not deny that these first numbers contained much truth, because he spoke of their authors as " distinguished divines of a Protestant and learned university," therefore he is a Tractarian ; and all this in the face of the guarded editorial notice taken of them in the first (juotation I have given, which, as your readers will observe, by nu means expresses an unqualified approval of their contents. Sir, it will not do. His reasoLing on these quotations is utterly, radically unsound. Again : the recoinendation ''to pemse the Tracts for themselves, &c." given by the editor to those unacquainted with the Tractarian controversy, 3Ir. Brough, drawing largely upon his imagination, and calculating largely upon the credulity of your readers, supposes to be addressed by the Archdeacon to an assemblage, lay and cleri- cal, in St. Paul's Church, London, and from this supposition he insinuates the probability of erroneous teaching. Now, Mr. Editor, let not an inference, founded upon an imaginary case, be accepted, and one founded upon a real case be objected. Dr. Bethune has al- ready published several charges. What erroneous sentiments are deducible from them ? Would Mr. Brough consider the following expressed in his charge of 1855, a proof of any bias towards Rome '! "Our Lord's own teaching and appointments show that the work of devotional duty is not to be overburdened by undue ceremonial, nor its spirit crushed beneath an overpowering weight of material covering. Where there is too much of material dress upon religion — where tho work of devotion is mixed up with an un- due preponderence of ceremonies and forms ; the mind and spirit become, as we may say, materialised ; the thoughts and feelings acquire, as it were, a corpereal grossness j there is a sensuality and earthiness engendered in the affections thus employed. This is but d .18' THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 41 ly referred to ; and 1 1843, it will be n mentioned these obation of them, aiut as to the use extract from the ily refer to a small Brough comments aders to suppose of by tho editor of additions to our ilf fiiently polite to oui the publisher, 1 these numbers as swing them he did 1 truth, because he }s of a Protestant rian ; and all this )f them in the first 'ill observe, by nu contents. Sir, it s utterly, radically its for themselves, ith the Tractarian 1 his imagination, r readers, supposes ^g6, Jay and cleri- lis supposition he Now, Mr. Editor, case, be accepted, )r. Bethune has al- ms sentiments are ider the following as towards Rome i s show that the dened by undue rpowering weight of material dress }d up with an un- mind and spirit jhts and feelings 3 a sensuality and yed. This is but natural, where the eye and car, for instance, are too exclusively engaged ; impvessions in tliLs case play around the senses, and stop #»ort thove ; the inner man is not thoroughly reached, the inner Kfe is not adequately aft'ected. We find in the countries and imongst the people where it prevails, much outward devotion, and much time spent in the work ; but the inwav^ soul and life appears lot to be correspondingly aft'ected ; there is ,- at a playing as it were trith the sympathies and passiouf of the sensual nature. We have, uidoed, but to look at the moral condition of Italy and Spain, in oomparison with that of our own favored mother country, to be assured of the fact, that the tendency of their system of religion is to leave the inner man comparatively untouched, and centralize religion in mere animal emotion. Superstition is the necessary Oonsequeuce ; and that easy, but dangerous credulity, which assumes that a penance can atone for a crime, and that the priest's word dan assure a pardon." Now. Sir, do these sentiments — during the delivery of which from the pulpit of St. Paul's Church, Mr. Brough, if I mistake jot, was pi'esent — argue a bias towards Rome ? Mr. Brough pic- tures to himself Dr. Bethune delivering an Episcopal charge, and tecommerding t perusal of the Tracts for the Times, and then he asks, " would not one universal cry pronounce aha ! our eye hath feen it," — i. c. Tractarianism. But here. Sir, is no imaginary case iut a case of actual occurrence, in which the Romish ceremonial is Condemned, and the vast superiority of Protestantism, not only as # system of spiritual religion, but also as a system of morality, is E roved from Scripture reason, and the undeniable evidence of lets. What then shall be the universal cry? Sir, let not the ahadow have more influence in awakening our distrust than the substance in establishing our confidence. Let not a man's imagi- Bation assert a supremacy over his better judgment. Let not pre-conceived opinions shut up every avenue to conviction. Let evenhanded justice be extended to all ; and let the universal cry be — for its propriety is un(iuestiouable — these are not the sentiments of a Romanizing Tractarian or a Puseyite ; this is sound Protest- antism ; no phantom has deluded us, but our eyes have seen it and our ears have heard it. Your readers will have the kindness to bear with me if I beg their attention to another brief extract from the same charge indicative of Dr. Bcthune's freedom from the peculiarities which distinguish what is called the Tractarian School. "There would be modes in worship and rules for conducting the business of the .sanctuary, which, prevalent as they may have been in the primitive times, and ccnducivo then, in the judgment of the It 42 THE EPLSrOPAIi roNTROVERSr. i •!1 il ! ) 1 i 'it church, to rcguhirity nnd d ition, present views aud modern cuh- tomp, would render not uwiy inexpedient but undenyir.g. Many things indeed, adopted in the Apostle's days, were soon dropped from the abuse to which, from human infirmity or the shifting phases of society, they became subject. 1 need but instance the feast of charity, the kiss of peace, and some subordinate offices in the church — that of deaconnesses for example — which it was soon found inexpedient to retain. And it would be as difficult, and as unwise, to restore such cut;toras now ; as well as to re-establish certain acts of discipline, or re-introduce peculiar practices in divine worship, which, though they may liave been sanctioned by medi- eval or even primitive usage, have doubtless, in most cases, fallen into disuse from the impossibility of maintaining them with any hope of edification or spiritual benefit." 2. I now come to the quotation which the Rev. Mr. Brough has made — or rather which he has professed to make — (for as I shall sl^ow, it is not an accurate extract) — from the writings of Dr. Bethune, and which he contrasts with the teaching of the 1 0th and 20th articles of the Church. I may mention that it ought to have been the 19th and 21st articles ; fortunately for his own cause he lias not alluded to the 20th article. Now Mr. Brough has com- mitted a mistake in marking the passage referring to the autliority of " General Councils, &c.," asan extract quotation, as your readers will note by carefully examining the following passages from an article of the Church paper of January 15, 1847. '< It is about disputed points that tlic testimony of the church is (jhiefly employed. There are certain matters regarding which the voice of Sci'ipture is misunderstood : with respect to certain doc- trines the language of revelation presents itself to diflFercnt indivi- duals with different meanings. Here private judgment is at fault ; for if men will follow no guide but their own discernment — and the discernment of one is opposed in its results to the same faculty in another — it is impossible that there should be any agreement. The church here interferes, and strives to ensure unity by delivering her opinion upon the matter in dispute. The decision of any par- ticular church must coincide with the judgment of the church uni- versal ; otherwise if it oppose the general voice of Christians in the early and pure ages of Christianity — as the Church of Rome does iu in the corruptions which have grown upon that uncatholic commu- nion — our submission to it cannot be exacted. But where the church universal has recorded its conclusions, and laid down its interpreta- tion of the Holy Scriptures so positively that there can be no further obscurity or doubt in the canons of General Councils, and the wri- tings of large numbers of primitive divines, a decision of this kind eanuot I grave of ftuthorit; ■i Does the 20tl pf' faith, finful ra .ff this s ^e it obs Itni versa Jirimitivi simple i 23inion, ing wh nettle it. , Mr. B Wd devc HP doubt ip unsou 'ounde( le way l|ould tn \m even & ated coi 81st arti ^cs th |||storica t$ the re Mntradi ^ould t Mother "Wei God is tl of his ever decl enough be com] appointil Mr. ij Prot.eatii readers tl;^m tol H^at pri tl^ui tol il I THK EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 4iJ s aud modern cus- ndenying. iMany ere soon dropped ,y or the shifting I but instance the )ordinate offices in -which it was soon IS difficult, and as as to re-establish practices in divine nctioned by niedi- most cases, fallen ng them with any V. Mr. Broughhas e — (for as I shall he writings of Dr. ing of the 1 9th and lat it ought to have his own cause ho Brough has com- ing to the authority tion, as your readers y passages from an 7. uy of the church is ■egarding which the ject to certain doc- ' to different indivi- adgment is at fault ; gcernment — and the the same faculty in ,ny agreement. The unity by delivering decision of any par- it of the church uni- ! of Christians in the irch of Rome does in t uncatholic commu- Jut where the church down its interpreta- lere can be no further ouncils, and the wri- decision of this kind fauuot be set aside, we conceive, without the commission of a very grave offence. It is authority beyond question ; for if it were not authority, the neglect of it would be no sin." Does anything in these observations go beyond the assertion of |he 20th article, that " The church hath authority in controversies pf faith." And if it be conceded that she has, would it not be finful rashly to impugn it ? And what can be safer than the ground ff this authority, as explained in the above ([uotatiou ? It is not, %e it observed, yielded to a single church, but to the voice of the Universal church ; it is limited to that voice as expressed in the 'primitive days of Christianity; and it is narrowed down to the ijmple interpretation of Scripture, admitting no new dogma or 3)inion, but adopting the word of God as the basis, and only set- ing what the word of God means as far as human judgment can Mttlc it. ,,-, Mr. Brough, I persume, reads the Common I'rayer ex animo, aiid devoutly believes in the Apostle and Nicene Creeds. He would, jUff) doubt, regard it as a grave offence to hear these creeds assailed 9§ unsound. And yet they are the compilation of the church — founded certainly on the Word of God, but yet its own opinion of e way in which that word should be interpreted. And those who fjould treat them contemptuously, he would be disposed to address ii even stronger terms of rebuke than the editorial article above «lted conveys. And thus Mr. Brough's citation of the 19th and fist articles is far from the question. The above editorial article ia|kcs the Holy Scripture as the groundwork, and appeals to the ipstorical testimony of the church only where there is a doubt as ij^ the real meaning of the Scripture. But it does not affirm — in tntradiction to the 19th article — that churches have not erred, lould there be any further doubt upon this point, let me make another brief quotation from the CAwrc/t paper of Feb. 20, 1847. " We never maintained that every source of instruction of which God is the author, and connected by God with the written record of his will, is infallible. Jt is highly improbable that we should ever declare anything half so absurd. For if we were inconsiderate enough to make this unadvised assertion, we should, in that case, be compelled to go the length of saying that a ministry of divine appointment is infaUible." Mr. Brough regards this as a contest for the integrity of our ^otestant Church. But, Sir, my reverend friend must give your readers credit for the possession of sufficient discernnient to enable tliem to judge between assertion and proof ; and, when it is asked wjiat principle of Frote«tantism has been assailed, he must permit ti^ui to share in the decision of the question. 44 THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 'm i! > The zeal which your correspondent manifests for the Protestantisiw of the church, the holy ardor for its maintenance which he evinces in the strongly expressed hope that the church in this land may be preserved from apostacy and from the fallacies and wiles of Tract- arianism, should elicit the warmest approval of all who value the prin- ciples of the reformation, and who desire that those principles nnij be transmitted inviolate to their posterity for ever. The unscriptural and uncatholic dogmas of the Romish communion against which, at the era of the reformation a solemn protest was recorded in the liturgy and articles of the Anglican ohurcli, must be carefullj guarded against and unceasingly opposed. But let the weapons of our warfare be those of which we need never be ashamed, viz. Scrip ture, reason, and the testimony of the church in the earliest and purest ages. By using these weapons it was that the immortal martyrs of the church achieved her reformation. It was thus thej rescued for us from amidst a mass of error, the heritage of ''the faith which was once delivered to the saints." It was thus thej drew the conclusion that, upon certain points of doctrine, Rome had erred from the truth, and that, from time to time, during the lapse of 1000 years, she had added many new dogmas to the simple faith of Christ. When in assailing the errors of Rome, we appeal mainly to popular prejudice, or deal only in denunciation, it musi be evident to reflecting men that in reality we are giving Rome the advantage, and that we are far from doing adequate justice to the strength of our cause. This letter sir, has, I fear, exhausted the patience of your readers, and I must hasten to a conclusion. JMr. Brough, has insinuated that Dr. Bethune has put forth views on the Eucharist at varience with the teaching of the church. I took the liberty to deny the charge, and to ask for the evidence. The onus prohandi rests witli him, and when he enters on the pro )f, I shall be happy to give it my attention. E. PATTERSON. Stratford, May 26, 1857. THE MAIN FACTS OF THE COBOURG ALTAR CASE. A few gentlemen expressed a wish to make an oflFering to tiie new Church, and proposed a carved altar-table. They ordered ii from the United States, without, taking the precaution of showing' Dr. Bethune the patterns they designed to adopt. The carvings were a ladder, sponge, rope, &c., and were screwed on the table Y. "or the Protestantism CO which he evinces in this land may bt ! and wiles of Tract- I who value the prin- ;hose principles nmj r. The unscriptural nion against which, was recorded in the must be carefull) t let the weapons of ashamed, viz. Scrip- in the earliest and that the immortal It was thus thej he heritage of "the It was thus thej of doctrine, Rome to time, during the ogmas to the simple of Rome, we appeal enunciation, it musi we are giving Rome ; adequate justice to jnce of your readers, ugh, has insinuated lucharist at varienco J liberty to deny the prohandi rests witli 1 be happy to give it . PATTERSON. THK EPISCOPAL CONTROVEUSY 45 I ALTAR CASE. an oifering to tlif 3. They ordered ii ecaution of showini; lopt. The carving; rewed on the table t first many saw it and approved of it, aiii'»ngst others not a few ^rish members of the Congregation. Discussion gradually took ^iplace regarding it, and the result wa.s, that some persons entered 4the Church at night, and removed the carvings. iJr. Bctuune was ^t Quebec at the time. When he returned the sense of the Con- ggregation was taken on the subject, and both the tlector and the ii^'Oongregation almost unanimously came to the conclasion that it wn.s ..most wise to remove it. Dr. Bethune always publicly stated, that ^if consulted at the outtet, he would have recommended a plain ta- jjfble, although he considered the carvings perfectly harmless, as such i^jcmblems are constantly exhibited on stained windows without ex- v citing objection or distrust. Yet as no principle was involved, and .•for the sake of peace he was quite willing that it should be removed. . Many of his most attached parishioners are Irish gentlemen, of whom there is not one who would n(i|§ affirm that he is a sound , Protestant. 4 OUR FUTURE BISHOP! WHOM WE SHOULD CHOOSK? ' To the Editor of the Lotu/oir Frre Press. Sir, — Is the Rev. Mr. Brough a self-c;onfitituted champion, or is he merely the exponent and mouthpiete of him who nolens roltnu, i and usqve ad ^museum is endeavouring to raise himself to be the head of our See, and who, if report speaks true, stands behind the scenes, guiding with his councils and furnishing with his arguments his changeable, inconsistent and imprudent friend i' is the question ' which we laity ask of one another, when wc read the long, the ■ verbose, and the discursive effusions with which the Rev. gentle- man has lately favoured tlie public, on the momentous Episcopal subject. It is a question, however, which like a great many others that have been lately asked, will I suppose never be answered. Those who feel an interest in the Episcopal duel, are no doubt amused at the adroit manner with which the Rev. gentleman endeavours to throw on his adversaries, the onus " as to who threw the first stone, in that absence of moderation, and freedom from personalities," which eminently characterizes the clerical discussion going on at present. They have, no doubt, observed, that he commences and concludes every letter with which he has •wearied us, with the responsibility, se to have recourse ig their respective ' their flocks, it is d which we are at ey ''And whom k, or the llev. Mr. ymeu has been so ?e of his parochial tly possesses those vould look forward • preside over the THE EPISrOPAI. rONTROVBRST. 47 fl|ture destinies of the Western Diocese, as to entitle him to the preference '! , With the view of eliciting information aud truth on this impor- ttnt point, a letter was inserted in your columns of the 0th ult., nader the head of ** Our New Bishop — who should not be chosen V I^at letter was written by one who is still and has been for many yfars, a living witness to the manner in which the Parish of Lon- don has been, and is at this preseiit moment worked. In it were reviewed the mode of ministry which has characterized the clerical Ofreer of the llev. Mr. IJrough's " favorite candidate," for the twenty-five years he has been resident in it; the influence w-ich his conduct, example, exhortations and teachings have had amongst his parishioners; — the fruits which his labours have wrought; — the afl!^(3ctiou aud esteem which he once gained, but could not r^ain ; with the express view of suggesting to those to whom is entrusted the grave and important duty of the election of our Bishop, the n icessity which they ought to possess, of jiansin;/ as it were, on the ihrei^huid before they, perchance, through ignorance of his real merits, could so far stultify themselves as to give the pre- ference to one whose charge has been so important, and yet whose workings have been so unprofitable; whose apathy aud indift'ercnoe have been so great, that they have driven many of !iis parishioiieis into the ranks of Di.ssent, which through his instrumentality hat« become rife. An answer has been looked for, but in vain. " iSi- leucc speaks consent, "is an old adage so familiar and conclusive as to be daily in the mouths of most of us, that it is justly applicable to, and answers the " Western Layman " in a satisfactory manner, tWo-thirds of the attendants at St. Paul's C?hurch, cannot deny. Is it possible, then, that he whose name has been held up through die length and breadth, not only of aiis his adopted, but in those of his mother country, as the only fit and proper person to fill that high and elevated post, to which we all would look with reverence, otnnot find one friend, one kind friend, not even the Kev. Mr. Brough, who will dare to stand up in his defence and say, that even one of the ministerial failings depicted in that letter has been exaggerated y Is ther. no one to tell the " (-Ilergy aud Lay Dele- gates" that it has been his maxim rrer to abstain from all question- able money operations ? No one to deny that so sordid is his love for the " mammon of unrighteousness," that the inimitable and satirical Juvenal has given his armorial bearings an appropriate motto in the well-kaowu quotation " crescil amor nnmmi quantum ipse pecnuia crescit," and that the valuable time given by Him, hefore whose knee we lihall all yet bow, and " give an account of our stewardship," and as Paul says, " For we brought nothing into 4S THE RPISrOPAI- CONTROVERSY. lU thiB world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out," inBtead of being spent in attending to the spiritual wants of his numerous, neglected and needy parishioners, has been occupied in the amass- ment of wealth, in " buying, selling and speculating." Amongst those who so staunchly support and so warmly admire him, cannot he find one to say that he possesses that meek, mild, forgiving, conciliatory and contmUabh temper, which we all would look forward to as requisite in him who is to be our Bishop ? Will no one come forward and deny the statement, that his ex- hortations and teachings are so little prized, th-" . the attendants at his weekly lectures arc few and far between, and composed chiefly of those who have recently arrived in London, and consequently know him. not ! Is there no one to deny, that numbers of his neglected parishion- ers have not, and are not still leaving his church, and seeking throughout the city, otlier and more congenial places of worship ? Is not the silence, then, which has followed the footsteps of the '^Western Layman," remarkable? Is it not ominous ? Docs it not carry with it an admission iA' a conscious inability and a moral impossibility of a contradiction '! Are the questions he has asked and the statements he Jias made, to bo considered harsh and un- warrantable? or are they truthful, warrantable i.id unanswerable ? And if so, what ought to be the conclusion made, and the inferences drawn in the mind of the thoughtful Christian ? Would he wish to sec him who has spent tlie whole of a long ministry in pursuits totally irreconcileable and at variance with those of a zealous, conscientious, earnest and pious minister of the Gospel; would he, [ say, deem him worthy of the high honor, which only those who really do not enter into a proper considera- tion of, and consult the real interests of our beloved Church, would wish to see vested in him ? How can one who has so seriously, so grievously, and for such a length of time, neglected the duties of a parish priest, that Dissent has crept in, and become rife, where resistance through an efficient ministry, would have been amply sufficient to have kept her out, perform with efficiency, the responsible, the difficult and the solemn duties of a Diocesan ? Can one who, by "apathy, hauteur, indifference and neglect" has estranged their affections and driven many from the ranks of Epis- copacy, can, I say, such a' one be deemed worthy of an Episcopate ? Can one who does not stand immaculate, who has imbibed fully of its poison and in his daily actions has so well personified that plague spot of the age, '* buying, selling, and speculating?" is he who has sacrificed at the shrine of the " God of Mammon" the P 00 elt .\t out ticu I choi torit dispi 3l£ A THE F.PI^COI'AI, fONTROVERSV. 49 ire Id, aid ex- 'j at lefly ntly [iion- lip? f the ocs it moral asked ud un- rablc 't ireuces 1 long with of the honor, isidera- would such a Dissent \er out, solemn precious and valuable tinio triven by Him who says " Uy their fruits Bhall ye know them " to be deemed u " fit and proper person" to occupy that post to whieh we idl wou'.J. look with reverence? Is such the career, whidi is likely lo inspire the minds of the clergy and laity with feeliiij>s of revere.iee, respect, and esteem ? Are such the antecedents so well and so generally known through- out his parish, which are likely to create any impression for, add any impetus to, advance the interc-sts of our beloved Church in par- ticular, and the cause of religion in general r* In short what can his > A CALVIN ISTIC versus SCRIPTURAL AND PRAYER. BOOK BISHOP. Tn the Fj alone, emanates from the infinite excel- lence, is its ennobling effects upon those who truly receive it, and on the other hand, that immediate lowering of the moral tone which is almost invariably consequent upon any measure of departure from it. Whether it be Calvanism, Popery, Quakerism, or Spirit- ualism, &c., (fee, by which Christian men become unhappily influenced, each will be found aiiei :*« own fashion, to degrade the appreciation of Gospel virtue and evangelical simplicity and truth- fulness. It is only thus I can account for that want of fairncLS, simplicity, and brotherly candour which I deeply regret to see cLaracterises, too generally, the calvinistic portion of our brethren in tiie present Episcopal controversy ; and that to such a degree, that it has more than once eliciteii the indignant remarks of the secular press. The writers are, some of them, at least, men of gentlemanly feeling, kind hearts, and, 1 doubt not, in the main. Christian principle ; alas ! then, that their fine gold .should be so dimned by the dress of calvinistic bitterness and spiritual self-exaltation, as to cause them to adopt a deceptive and ungenerous controversial course, only 50 THE EPlsrOPAJi CONTROVERSY. 1 i to be defended bv the fearful Jesuital dogma, that " the end jus- tifies the means." ., ,» i^ ,. The Rev. C C Brough, in his answer to the nev. Ji,. Pattci-sou, has, it pains me to say, acted thus disingenuously ; in the following particulars: — ,.,,., 1st. He reiterates tiie charge that we, Dr. IJethune s support- ci-s corainenced personalities; without so much as alluding to the nositive proofs to the contrary which I gave him in a late number of the Free. Presi>. and which I took particular pains to send to every clersyman and lay delegate in the west, and otherwise extensively U) circulate. 2nd. He again pioducts, aK-u at great length, the charge of "Tractarianism," although it is a mere baseless slander, if by that cant term any traitorous leaning to the unhallowed errors of the l>apacy is meant to be implied. Here, also, he entirely ignores the answer which I had given in the above-named paper, and which with your permission, I will repeat ; it was as follows : "What do we say to Dr. Bethunc's defence of the Tracts for the Tinus, &c. ^ Simply this, that he must have been a traitor to the Church not to have rejoiced to .sec the vigorous defence which the first numbers of those Tracts made of the doctrines of the Gospel as ever taught in the Primitive and Reform- ed Anglican Church. The Church of England had been, ever since the great Puritan rebellion, more or less afflicted with the incubus of calvinistic error; awlully dishonoring God by teaching that he formed the vast majority of the human race to be inevitably damned; practically trampling upon the blood J Christ and contradicting tie bles.sed Gospel, by holding that he did not " taste death for every man," but only for a secret number, by calvinists falsely called the "elect." Calvinism had also done iimch to drive Christ out of His own church, by treating the ordinances instituted by Himself as ' beggarly elements ;' these and many other false doctrines anu sore practical evils had this deadly error brouti;ht u^)on the church ; hence every true believer in the teaching of the Prayer-book rejoiced to see earnest and learned men at Oxford trying once more to reform the church, and bring licr back to her own Prayer-book again; but when some of these Tract writers began themselves to wander from the pure sinjplicity of the (fospel, and uphold many of the dangerous errors of Romanism ; then, the Archdeacon, with other sound churchmen, both at home and here, refused any longer to have anything to do with the Trac- tarians ! Thus did Dr. Bethune defend the ' Tracts ' so long as they defended the doctrines of the Church of England, but not one hour longer"" diliged \>> 4 THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 5] nd jus- .tcrsou, Uowing upport- g to th( mber of every ensively large of by that 5 of the lOves the lich with racts for traitor to defence doctrines lleforni- leu, ever ted with God by ace to be Christ did not mber, by so done g the lese and s deadly er in the ned men )ring licr ese Tract ty of the )roanipm ; at home the Trac- long a» it not one " Now, my brethren, is it not strange that such plain and Scrip- tural conduct, and such holy wisdom as this should be brought as a charge against the Archdeacon ? Does it not look as if those who bring such charges do themselves cling to the unscriptural and dangerous errors of Calvinism, opposed as they are to the plain teaching of the Prayer-book ; and are angry with Dr. Bethune and his supporters that they will not do the same, but d-part alike from Home and Geneva ?" By looking over Mr. Brough's letter again, your readers will seo that he admits the truth of the above statement, that it was onlv the Jirst portion of the "Tracts for the Times" that Dr. Bethune sanctioned ; hence, by Mr. Broujh's own admission, it is clear that when the " Tracts" began, in any measure, to forsake the doctrines of the Prayer-book, Archdeacon Bethune forsook them, 3rd. The real sin of Archdeacon Bethune, and of his supporters, in the eyes of Mr. Brough, and Dr. Oronyn's friends generally, is .simply this : — that we ark not Oalvinists 1 Let this fact be fairly understood. With all other honest churchmen. Dr. Bethune and his friends believe the 1 7th article, perhaps more fully than our calvinistic brethren j but, thank God, it does not teach Calvinism any more than do the Baptismal, the (Jonfirmation, the Communion, and the Ordination .services. With the Bible and the Prayer-book in our hands, we cannot, as honest men, however, do other than believe also that Christ Jesus tasteth death for ereri/ man ; that a// therefore may be saved ; yea, and that wherever the visible Church of Christ is found, there all have the blessed opportunity afforded them of becoming the elect of God; and we further believe that in order to ."salvation good works must be brought forth by us, as tiie lively fruits of an earnest and right faith ; and that the .surest method of being thus enabled " to walk in Christ Jesus," is the diligent, penitent, and believing use of those ordinances which Christ has himself established. But for holding these blessed and (lospel truths, in which the Church of Chri.st has ever rejoiced, we are called by the (uilvinistic portion of the church — nnecdiufeli- und was his, and that he would build up to the church windows if he thought proper. Perhaps such a legal right might be asserted, were the income derived from the Rectory of London, small ; such, however, is not the case. Besides, Dr. Oronyn is accused of being a land specu- lator. And while on this subject, we nuiy add that there is a story of his operations relative to the purchase of a lot in London, known as the " Theatre Lot," which at all events, marks an amount of sharp practice, painful to observe in a clergyman. The subject was matter of discussion at a meeting in London, — as usual marked by much acrimony — therefore whatever may be the attainments of l)r. Cronyn, these circumstances at once predetermine our prepos- session. For, however learned and eloquent a divine may be, it is evident that his opportunities for good are lessened to a mhiimum' point, if he fails to carry with him the respect of those over whom he presides, and that he ought to be the last man in the Diocese who ought to be exalted to the important office. On the other hand, in our poor judgment, we have in the char- acter of the Venerable Archdeacon Jiethuno, the beau ideal, if we may be allowed the use of .such a term, of a Bishop. In his spotless and unblemished life, his known learning and ability, hif^ moderate opinions, his piety, and popularity with the clergy, his faithful, active and laborious parochial ministrations, the mildness and gentleness of his highly cultivated mind, conjoined with the tact, temper and discretion which have always marked the discharg«! of his Archdeaconal duties, we have positive arguments for point- ing to him as eminently suited for the office. We conceive that the Delegates will not only perform an act of justice, by unani- mously giving their recommendation to this " able and pure man," but they will in so doing, nerve the interests of morality and their if ! ■ i ■ THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 55* church,— for in our humble opinion there is not the slightest com- parison between the two men. One has the reputation of beintr worldly, a speculator, and an appropriator to his own use, of the property of his parish, in which general dissatisfaction and disunion reigas at the present moment to a lamentable extent. The other is a pure, good man, learned, modest, beloved in his parish, pious and devoted to letters, who would give dignity to the officefand would, we believe, set an example in his life, which would not fail to do good. TIIK 0HUK0HVVA1IUEN8' llEPLY TO THE DUNDAS WARDER ON THE SlIJiJECT OF THE iNEW DIOCESE. [We have been requested by the Churchwardens of St. Paul's tu insert the following letter, with which request we have much pleasure in complying. — Editou Free Press.] To the Editor of the Dundiu Warder. Sir, — An Editorial article has lately appeared in your columns on the subject of the new Western Diocese, in which you strongly ;uivoo:Uc the claims of Dr. Bethune to the Bishopric in opposition to those of Dr. Crouyn. Had the relative merits of the two candidates been placed before your readers in their true colours, no one could have complained, but when the character of the former is elevated at the expen.se of that of the latter, and a strong contrast drawn, founded on gross misrepresentation, it is time to undeceive you, and to point out where you have been misled by false reports. You state that " the supporters of Dr. Cronyn have assailed Dr. Bethune in a manner to be regretted for their own sakes." Were .such the case, it could not militate against Dr. Cronyn, but would simply prove that some of his professed friends had more zeal than discretion ; but Sir, we challenge you to produce a passage of any letter emanating from his supporters, in which the character of Dr. Bethune has been assailed in such a way as to warrant the violent personal attack made by you on Dr. Cronyn, based on a series of statements, as false as they are uncalled for. We proceed to the agreeable task of refuting them, and can sub- stantiate all our statements by evidence. 1. Your first charge is that '• The most stormy vestry meetings in the Province have taken place in his church." Vou must be well aware that it is in the power of a very few unquiet spirits to act in such a manner as t<» give a colouring to an accusation of this sort;— but the Minutes of the Vestry Book will show that the Churchwardens, not the Rector, have been the parties generally 66 THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. W ■Hi aHsailed, while tho laii-e iimjoriticH, in well attended Vestry Meet- ings which have suPtaincd their acts, and the annual re-election for fourteen consecutive years of the same person to the office of the people's Churchwarden may be taken as evidence as to the general feeling of the congregation. Indeed, the dissentients have found themselves in such a decided minority, that they have absented themselves from the last two Vestry Meetings, which were charac- terized by good feeling and unanimity. /■ 2. ** It is a matter of notoriety," you state, " that there have been constant disputes between the Rector and his congregation, to an extent that the secessions from his church have built up other forms of worship." The answer to the first part of this par- agraph would only be a matter of our assertion against yours, but for the test which you have in the latter part proposed, and on which we can prove your statement false. We can refer again to the church books, to show that scarcely a pew-holder or seat-holdor has resignea his pow or sitting in many years, while the number of members of other Christian denominations who have joined our communion, is by no means inconsiderable. For this fact the books are evidence, while it is patent to all that the free sittings arc almost always filled. 3. " leaving his own church in London, the sole buildinu, in the Township possessed by the Anglican communicants." Such an assertion jhows great ignorance of our statistics, (for we will not attribute the mistake to wrong motives). In addition to St. Paul's Church, London, there are in the Township, St. John's Church, built during our present Rector's incumbency of the adjoining Par- ish; St. George's and St. Mark's Churches, built during the incum- bency of the Rev. Chas. C. Rrough. ,,4. Respecting the ground upon which the church stands, you have been greatly misinfr. Cronyn, in common with all the friends of the church, made purchases to the extent of his means, to assist in carrying out this object. So little of spemlation was there in this, that a number of the lots then sold were tiirown up by the purchasers, and it was not for some years, that this property, by the general advance in the price of real estate became valuable, is this speculation y When ground was required for a cemetry, Dr. Cronyn offered to the A'cstry, at the price which he had paid for it Kome years before, u most eligible block of 45 acres, close to the town, which had greatly increased in value since he bought it, but on which he declined to receive any advance. Is this the act of »pecnlutor ? Again, when some of the (.'hurch land was sold in order to re- lieve the debt incurred for the erection of galleries, organ, &c., Dr. (;ronyn bought a considerable amount at auction, at a price avowed- ly beyond its value, to aid in that object; the purchase being in fact a donation to the Church of a considerable sum. Is t^his, we repeat the act of a speculator, or of one who was disposed to *' appropriate to his own use what was meant for the (Miurch i"' 6. As to the so called "Theatre liOt." The excitement on this aiatter arose durinV. Cronyn has received no emolument from his congregation ; for if there be any meaning at all in such words, it mus? be that the Hector of London has performed his duties gratuitiously. Why, i\\e fact is notorious, that, with the exception of Toronto, his Kectory has been the most valuable in the Province ; and, if we mistake not, by a provision made by Mr. JJaldwin, when >Ir. Blake was KSolicitor General, Dr. Cronyn was one of those paid an e(|uivalent for the deduction of the stipend allowed by the Society for the Tro- pogation of the Gospel, when the responsibility was transferred ui tlie Province. On this point wo are not certain, but we are posi- tive that, for several years past. Dr. Cronyn has been in the receipt of a very largo income out of the Clergy llcserves. We know Dr. Cronyn only by reputation, and have no personal feelings to guide us in having opposed him. 'i'lie reason we at all entered into the controvev.sy is, from the very unfair treatment which has been extended to Dr. Bethuno. It is, however, some satisfaction to know that the defr nee which has been made of tbe Archdeacon, has at all events silenced those who attacked him ; for on all sides we sec the attempt disclainied, and tliose who oppose him now do justice to liis learning and pure life. Turning, how- ever, to the document which has led to our comments, it is with some difficulty we believe that its signers were ignorant of the at- tack on Dr. Bethuno by ^ir. Brough, of sonic parisli uear London. Since this period Mr. lirough is evidently ashanuxl of his conduct, and has writton somewhat in a bettor spirit. But we put it to any one, if the fjuestion, whore the Archdeacon gained his degrees, did not amount to a doubt of his deserts to possess such honors. Never was a plainer insinuation of a want ol capacity. I>ut since this tjuestion has been answered, and it is known tliat the same college which conferred a degree on i^ishop tStrachan, gave a diploma to Dr. Bethune, nothing more is now of course .^^aid (U' distinguished lolleges. Therefore, for what purpose was it argued that three stn- ilents seceded from tlieCobourg Institution except to awaken doubts of the doctrine which the Arclideaco!i taught there. They left — here was the fact — why ^ because thoy could not sub.scribe to the teaching. And following this in.>^igni(icant fact was the assertion that carved imagery was broken by Dr. Bcthune's parishioners in the parish church in ('ol)ouru;. Dr. Ci'onvn's friends mav call tliis what they please ; we stigmatise it as a cowardly and wanton at- tack. In a former artiile we have .said that Dr. Cronyn was a party to this libel. Wi; do not mean to divide the responsibility, or to 60 THE EPISCOl'Ar, CONTROVEHSy. trace the cxteut of his participation, lie may have inspired it or not — or have given suggestion or not — or liuve treated what he deemed would be telling points or not. This tine lino of division is beyond our ken. ^^it will Dr. Cronyn say that ho did not see the attack in iiianusc;' , and give it his cordial support '::' Referring, howevci io our remarks, that we considered Dr. Cronyn ill-qualified for a higher office, because he has .speculated in lands. What does the letter to which we allude prove, if it does not prove the truth of our assertion. We do not deny that the question is a very nice on 3, whether a clergyman is justified, or not, in entering into speculations, by which provision may be made for his family. But one fact is certain, that public opinion is against his doing so ; and that no religious teacher, be he of any denomination, ever did so act, without loosing his hold on public respect. In this position is the Rector of London. We have before us a number of an esteemed contemporary, whose reports are everywhere recognized as being worthy of credit, the Middlc- ae.x Prototype. It gives an account of a meeting which took place a year ago the last of IMay. We have there the whole history of the "Theatre Lot." Dr. Cronyn presided at a meeting where the lot was proposed to be purchased for a School. Now, what are the facts. The lot is purchased by the Doctor's son in England for £500. In his estimation before the Commission of Enquiry, Dr. Cronyn admitted it to be worth £1000. But after the purchase, a Mr. Hammond offered the owner, a widow, £700. Difficulties occurred on the matter, and Dr. Cronyn paid the £200 additional. Here we have the Chairman of a public meeting secretly purchasing under value, a lot, which he had seen dedicated to a specific pur- pose, whicii could not but raise its value. If the facts are wrong, they have remained uncontradicted for twelve months. A "spec- ulator," say the London Churchwardens, " is a person who makes a practice of buying lands for the purpose of selling them at an advance." We invite them to apply their anxiomtothe above facts. But further on, what do we see 'i Dr. Cronyn purchased land on his arrival, and sold some where a rectory was contemplated. The writers say at much below its value, and on easy terms ; but they admit that grumblers objected to the purchase, and that he took back his land. Nor is it denied that the congregation object to the Rector taking possession of the church ground, and that he has leased ground in opposition to their wishes. And, on this subject, we would ask them, will Dr. Cronyn make specific denial, that he did not say that he had the right to build up to the church windows '. Let us further follow Dr. Cronyn's defenders. It is admitted that he purchased from the glebe property when sold in lots; and really, r rilK Kl'ISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 61 it is somewhat >m/Ve to i-cad the (juestion <' l.s this speculation?" We reply unhesitatingly, yes ; for what makes men purchase in such cases, but the contingency that it will rise in value '{ To sav it was to aid in paying the debts (»f the Ciiurch, is .sheer nonsense, for in such a ease cverthing was to be gained by regular subscription in his own name. There was the example, a sense of propriety, the stimulus to be given to the good feeling of his congregation.' Then, at another sale, Dr. Cronyn was again a large purchaser, in order to meet the expense of an Organ and Gallery, J)oes all this mean that as Bishop, Dr. Cronyn would recommend his Clergy t(t speculate at land sales, to become purchasers, fur the sake of example, to stimulate the taste of their ))arishoners for buying and selling, to inculcate a spirit of traflic 'i Such is certainly the argu- ment to be deduced from what is said. There cannot be a doubt but the system is one under which he has thriven. J)r. Cronyn is now, by all accounts, a very rich man, and it .^cems that whenever the Church wanted any land there he was to sell it. The right man in the right place, lie sold them land for a glebe, sold them land for a cemetry, and he was prepared to .sell them land for a School Lot, at least he did his best to get it in his possession, although he presided at the meeting, where it was determined to purchase it. And by the admission of his friends, lie was always willing to give a stimulus to the neighbourhood, when Church lots were brought into the market. The first liishop of Ephesus gives admirable advice as to a Bishop's ideal. He is to be vigilent, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, not greedy of filthy lucre, and that he should have a good report of them that are without ; but we are yet to learn, that one of his recommendations was to set the example in land purchases, to his congregation, when the C'hurch somewhat needed money. DR. CRONYN'S CHARACTER CONSIDERED WITH RE- FERENCE TO HIS ELICIIULITY EOR THE NEW BISHOPRIC. To the Editor of the Loudon Free Prea. Sir : It affords me much pleasure in one sense, and much pain in another, to see the names of the two Churchwardens of St. Paul's Church, in this city, at the bottom of a letter, which an editorial from the Dundas Warder, un Or. Cronyn's ministerial character, ontrasted with that of Dr. Bethune with regard to their respective claims, to the elevation of the new See, has called forth '.m I 1 if 62 Tin; IPISCOPAIi CONTROVKRSY. (I The friends of the Rev. gcutlcinaii have at length, and at last, ventured forth, havini;- been redueed to the dire necessity of con- deseending to notice anonymous correspondence. Many, however, evince their surprise, that they have not yet ventured to enter the lists with your humble servant, the " AVeatern Layman," but that they iiave selected for their opponents those, who far away from the scene of the controversy, they imagine, nuiy not be in as good a position to answer the refined, plausible and glossy statements. We are proud, however, to say, that through life, we have always been ready with heart and hand to serve a good cause, and there- fore with our feeble efforts, we shall endeavor to lay before our readers, a critical analysis as brief as we can, of this redoubtable letter. We must, however, premise our observations by considering tin- relations which these two churchwardens hold with regard to their Hector, and then your readers may draw their own conclusions, as li> the moral weight which t/ieir names and (heir brains can gi\ji to :iny endorsation of Dr. Crony n's ministerial character. One of them being elected by his Hector, has conse(jueiitly nothing whatever to say to the congregation, the other chosen by tlie V'estry, and deservedly esteemed for his amiable qualities, by all who have the pleasure of his acfuiaintance, is extensively engaged in business of various kinds, which so engross and take up all his time, that he has but little for going about. (lonse- ((uently, he can know hardly anything of the ministration of the Rector — an observation equally applicable to his brother who spends most of his time in his counting-house. Do these two churchwardens then pretend to say, that they can make the public believe, that they are the mouth-piece and organ of the parishioners of London, that tliey represent their wishes, their feelings and their ideas, with regard to their Rector ? Do they think that because they are'churchwardens they can smooth and gloss over the discussion and discontent which, to a lamentable extent has, for a length of time, and still reigns supreme, in this much neglected parish, the consequence of the " apathy, hauteur, indifference, and neglect of its Rector '/ " If so ihey must indeed calculate largely on the credulity of their readers. We cannot assent to the oft repeated assertion of Dr. (jronyn's supporters, " that they have not assailed Dr. Rethunc's character in a manner to be regretted for their own sakes." Let any one read the sneering and covert letter of the Rev. Mr. Rrough to the Kev. Mr. Nelles— and will he not at once see that from (V.sdate has commenced this controversy 'i' Doas it not prove that their " zeal has overcome their discretion," and that the friends of Dr. Cronyn TiiK »';i'isroPAi, ntNTiiovKflnr. 63 have aflonlcd tliosi; of Dr. Uothuiio a j^ood opportuiiify, whicli loiio wished and sighed for, they luive sei/Aid with iividity, viz: that of (•;iiiva.ssiii«]; and contraBtiuj; his opponent's character, with regard in his eligibility for the new IJishoprie. My poor, miserable, insigiii- tkiiut self, (for are not we all so) would iiever have left my daily, Iioaceful oecupation, and ventured forth to take up my pen in behalf i(t' one whose character, clerical and moral, delies criticism, were it nut tor that ill-judged letter. " ]]ut has not the blow recoiled, as it generally does, on those who gave it ?" We will now, with much pleasure, proceed to the agreeable task of substantiating the various statements, which the world is told to helicve are as false as they are uncalled for. The ilrst which they ciid'iuvor to rebut is '' the most stormy meetings in the Province have taken place in his Church." 1 have carefully read, word fin- word, what they have written on the subject, but my dull and stu- pid comprehension cannot see that they have said a syllabic about ilicm not having taken place. The following plain, simple, and truthful facts, do not coincide with their subtle and plausible argu- ments. J'iVery uii(^ knows that the law orders the Vestry accounts tobc properly audited and laid on its table at the usual annual meeting hold for that purpose. ('an the.se two etjicicnl o nd self hmdfid churchwardens say, that they cvrv placed before the Vestry anj/ statement of the church af- fairs, which ok' with friends, ihioners, TJie Attached bond of A.re not t specu- Elumor" ) by hi,s riety in ^hurci'i- pecula- id doe.s n, who uI, efti- eiy which ings of so well cely to inter- ion iu uaclu- TIIK KPISCOPAJ. C0NTR0VKR8V. {\<^ sion, that " no ujatter iiow eloquent this divine may be, his oppor- tunities lor doing good in any sphere iu which he may be placed are lessened to a minimum point," when he fails to carry with him the respect of those over whom he presides, and that he ought to be the last man in the diocese who sliould be elected to the im- portant office. ii I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, A WESTERN LAYMAN. THE CHURCHWARDENS' LKTTMR JN REFERENCE TO DR. CRONYN'S OHARACTKH, ANSWERED. To the Editor of the London Free Frrss. Sir : The communication in your paper of the 1st inst., by the Churchwardens of St. Paul's, has surprised me not a little. Any- body intimate with one of those gentlemen would scarcely believe he could sign a document conceived in such bad taste, so incorrect in its assertions, Jesuitical iu its arguments, and showing such an utter want of judgment, as to injure the party he meant to protect. A gentleman by birth and education, of good abilities, and first rate ' usiness habits ought to have done better, and not to have allowed himself to be betrayed into signing such a foolish paper. It would have shown tact, as well as taste, when once the " un- quiet spirits" were hushed, to let them sleep ; but no ! not content with the undisputed possession of the Vestry room, these valiant Churchwardens must needs rush out into the street, and bray so loudly in your paper, as to awaken a whole host of angry " Western Laymen," whose forces joined to the *' unquiet spirits" will no doubt drive them back to the church again for shelter. Are not the Churchwardens aware, that one of these " unquiet spirits" is said to hold proof of certain statements made at a Vestry meeting with regard to a lease, which if published would militate seriously against the prospects of their candidate I I can only wonder at his forbearance. Would it not have been in better taste for these gentlemeu to ha if left JJr. Crony n to thank them for the hospitality extended to him, while his family was iu Europe, instead of publishing it abroad that they, and others were actually not without that virtue, which even the most barbarous tribes on the face of the earth are imbued with r K TO TllJi EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. Is it not most iusulting to Dr. Crouyu to imagiue for one luomeut that it is necessary for his Churchwardens to publish ««c/i a state- ment in order that it may be believed '' that ho was a welcome guest with many of his parishioners ?" The question now before the public is, which is the most tit and proper person to be elected as Bishop, Dr. Bethuue or Dr. Cronyu. In order to choose, it is necessary, that their characters should be known and scrutinized ) there ought to be no concealment. And in discussing their merits, it follows, that it is utterly impossible to avoid personalities. We cannot be guided solely by the doctrines tliey teach, but by the actions and example set by these rivals. On the one side Dr. IJethune is considered a Puseyite, but admitted otherwise to be unexceptionable, r>n the other side it has been proved that Dr. Bethune is not a Puseyite, and that there are Triany serious objections to Dr. (vrouyn. His only merits being talent, learning, low church doctrine, and riches. His p^ucipal faults are, an utter neglect of his congregation, an ungovernable tenipei', want of candour, and fondness of speculation. Some of the Churchwardens try to meet these charges. They say, " the minutes of the Vestry books will prove that the attacks of the "unquiet spirits," have generally been made on them and not on the liector. This is pretty true, for the minutes do not record a single instance of the disgraceful scenes which have taken place, and consequently the part taken in them by the Rector i.s left a blank. This is rather Jesuitical. But the fact remains, and cannot be blotted put, whether recorded on their minute books or not, that Dr. Cronyn has at church meet- ings given way to liis temper, and made use of statements and language which cannot be justified as compatible with the charac- teristics of a clergyman, a christian, or a gentleman. With regard to speculation, the churchwardens cite three or four instances in which thei/ say Dr. Cronyn's conduct was not that of a speculator. AVhat then ? Does this petty statement do away with the notorious fact, patent to every man, woman and child in London, that his oicn and the church lands have been speculated in either directli/ by himself, or indirectl// through the hands of a celebrated firm, to an enormous amount ? Have not this snug little " family compact" worked nicely into one another's hands ? And who is the master spirit among them y Let any one who has any doubts in the matter go to the Kegistry office, and see to whom and by whom all this property has been sold. Bad as such a state of things is, I must turn to a worse. Has not Dr. Cronyn failed most lamentably in his duties as a clergyman 'f The churchwardens wish it to be inferred that for THR EPISCOPAL r-ONTROVERST. 71 eighteen years lio performed his dniies (ji rata i(ons{y ; this is incor- rect ; he did not perform his duties properly, and he was paid for his services ; he received his salary from the Society for the Pro- pagation of the Gospel, he received his fees, he was paid as Military (Jhaplain, while the troops were stationed here. In his capacity as Military Chaplain he so far neglected his duty that some commanding officers would only sign the certificate en- titling him to his pay in so qualified a manner, that it was evident he did not deserve it — and in Colonel Chester's time, the neglect of the sick in the hospital was so great that it was reported to the commanding officer, and nothing but the breaking up of the military establishment prevented an investigation. It is notorious that for years he neglected the prisoners in jjiil, and not until lately, when a salary for £50 a year was granted, has a clergyman of the Church of England attended these unfortunates, now ministered to by the curate, not the Rector. Is it not certain that complaints are general, nay universal, of his inattention to the sick, the afflicted, the poor, and strangers ? How does the Sunday School prosper? Did it not once number about J>60 children ? Are they not now dwindled down to half the number ? What Jissistance does he give that excellent establish- ment, the (Jolonial School ? Is he not almost a stranger there ? Doeti he exert himself at all on behalf of an establishment so well calculated to streugthen the Church ? Do not some of the members of the Local Committee contemplate withdrawing from it, in con- sequence of the supineuess he has shown for its interests '{ And yet in the face of all this knowledge possessed by the church- wardens, they would have stranr/ers believe that Dr. Cronyu is the most fit and proper person to be promoted to the dignity and office of a Bishop, and that it is from affection to him and his ministry, St. Paul's church is now well filled. It would be odd indeed if a city of 16,000 inhabitants did not send churchmen enough to fill one House of Prayer, no matter who the preacher. Still if there was another church, it would without doubt be crowded at thc^e.K- pense of St. Paul's— and the motive would then be shown, which has hitherto sustained the only place of worship which a constant member of the Church of England can now attend m London. .,, I»n>, Sir, ,, . :, . r '' ' Your obedient Servant, ' ' ' ' ANOTHER WESTERN LAY.MAN. 'f'.M ' 72 THE EPISOOPAL CONTROVERSY. THE AUDITORS OF Sr. PAUL'S AT IS8UK WITH THE 0HURCHWA1U)KN'8 ON THE EiiSCOPAL QUALIFICA- TIONS OF Dii. CRONYN. ... , • To the Editor of the London Fn:c Prests. Sir, — As you have published in your columns the letter of the Churchwardens, addressed to the Editor of the l)tnida» Warder, I would request of yon the favour to insert the following. Yours, f (•ourse be set at rest by ii reference to the Registry Office where ti- tles and transactions in lands are registered. The grumblers who objected to the purchase of Dr. Cronyn's house for a rectory, had, I conceive, good reason for so doing — ('hurch lands contiguous to his house being exchanged with him for it. This, 1, as a grumbler, objected to, for I consider that property belonging to a corporation like a Church should be sold by auction. The distance of the house from the church was also a .'AMS. MR. MONSAHHAT'S HEPLY TO (CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN THE LKTTER OF MR. EDWARD ADAMS, AD- DRESSED TO THE "/^^A7A4,S' WARDElir To the Editor of the Fre« Prens. Sir: As you have published Mr. Adams' letter to the ^'IJumlas Warder," I shall feel obliged by your inserting the following answer to some of his statements. 1 am, Sir, your obedient servant, CHAS. MONSARRAT 1a)NU0N, June 8, 1857. ; To the Editor of the '■^ iJundan Wardtr." Sm: In a communication addressed to you by Edward Adams, Esq., on the subject of Dr. Cronyn's qualifications for the Episco- pate,! was not a little surprised on reading the following paragraph, viz : — '< With regard to this so called " Theatre lot," the statement ol the Churchwardens ' that all parties concerned fully exonerated Dr. C'ronyn from blame,' cannot be borne out by evidence. The sub- ject was brought up at a meeting of the Coli»nial ('hurch and School Society, specially called to hear Dr. Cronyn's explanation of this transaction; the expres-sion of the meeting was so condemna- tory of Dr. Cronyn's conduct, that he lost his temper and left the 7« THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. room ; a resolution favourable to Dr. Cronyn, was, however, carried by a majority of one, after a long discussion, during wliitih tlie Committee had dwindled t© eleven." Mr. Adams must have a very falacious memory to make a state- ment so contrary to fact. I beg leave to say, that from the conj- mencenient of the Society's operations iu Loudon, I have been, and still am Lay-Secretary of the corresponding Committee of the Colonial Church and School Society. I was present at the special meeting of the Committee referred to, held on the 18th December, 1855, and as Secretary carefully watched the proceedings and took down the minutes which are before me, and of which the following is a copy. ''Read extract from the minutes of the Home (Jomraittee as follows : ' Resolved that the subject brought under the notice of the Committee, in the minutes, respecting a piece of ground selected by the Corresponding Committee, as a site for new schools, and said to have been purchased meanwhile by the Rector of Lon- don, from a lady who had no right to sell, the property being held in trust, be reported to the Rev. Dr. Cronyn, Rector, with a request that he would favour the Committee with explanations. Read a letter of the Rev. Dr. Cronyn, dated 11th October, oflPering the desired explanations respecting the purchase of half an acre of land, in London, C. W., which the Corresponding Committee had been anxious to gain as a site for new schools. Resolved, that the statement of the Rev. Dr. Cronyn be communicated to the Corres- ponding Committee in London, C. W., and that in the opinion of this committee, the explanations conveyed in the above statements are perfectly satisfactory." After the reading of these extracts from the minutes of the Parent Committee, the Rev. M. Dillon stated : — "That in conversation with certain friends in Toronto into which he had been drawn, he had made use of strong expressions in refer- ence to Dr. Cronyn, and had even used the term dishonorable, but that he then thought Dr. Cronyn was the purchaser of the lot in question, which he now perceived was not the case." *' The Hon. (r. J. Goodhue enquired what were the charges pre- ferred against Dr. Cronyn, as undoubtedly none appeared in the correspondence of the Lay-Secretary, or in the minutes of this Committee ? A statement indeed is made in the extract of the minutes of the Parent Committee, that the lot had been purchased by the Rector of London, from a lady who had no right to sell, the property being held in trust, but certainly that statement had not emanated from this Committee." The following is the Resolution which was adopted — TUB KPI8C0PAL C0NTR0VER8T. 77 "Resolved, That the minutes of the Coimnittee of tlic Pareut Society which liuve been submitted for the consideration of this Comuiittee having been read, wc, the Corresponding Committee of London, C.W., wholly disclaim having made any cl nrge against the Rev. Dr. Cronyu with respect to the matters tLtsrein mentioned, and in the opinion of this Committee the Rev. Dr. Crouyn's explan- ations are considered perfectly .satisfactory, and that he is fully ex- onerated from any charge or imputation of impropriety with respect to the purchase of the said lot by his son Mr. V. Crony n, and this Committee regret exceedingly that any unjustifiable reports should have obtained circulation on this subject." " Before the resolution was put to the meeting, Mr. Klliot ex- pressed his disapproval of it, as it would appear from its tenor, that this Committee were sitting in judgment upon their clergyman, and were called upon to pass sentence upon his conduct, which he emphatically denied. He thought the more dignified course for the <' Committee was, to disdain having made any charge against Dr. Cronyn, and in proof to refer to their minutes ; as also to express their conviction of the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Parent Committee concerning the explanations made by Dr. Cronyn." It was accordingly moved in amendment by William Klliot, Esq. — " Resolved, that this Committee with reference to a communica- tion from the Committee of the Colonial Church »Society, dated Sep- tember 18, 1855, and October IG, 1855, beg to assure the Commit- tee of Colonial Church and School Society, that if it has been suppos- ed that any imputation has been cast upon the conduct of the Rev. Dr. Cronyn, in reference to a plot of ground in this town, the reso- lutions and proceedings of this Committee do not warrant any such imputation. And this Committee expressly di.sciaim any di.sposition upon their part, to create such an impression upon the minds of the members of the Committee of the Colonial Church Society, and this Committee' do desire to declare their conviction of the correctness of the conclusion which is expressed in the resolution of the Com- mittee of the Colonial Church Society of October IG, 1855." I have now given the minutes, and leave it to every impartial reader to decide whether Mr. Adams is warranted in stating that "the expression of the Committee was condemnatory of Dr. Cronyn." That Dr. Cronyu "lost his temper," is not correct. It in indeed true that he expressed his dissatisfaction with the amend- ment as cold and formal, and then very properly withdrew, leaving it to the Committee themselves to discuss the merits of the two resolutions of which he was the subject. Mr. Adams in stating that the resolution was adopted " when the 78 TJiK EPISCOPAIi CONTROVERSY. Cotumittce had dwindled to deren," would have his readers draw ail inference contrary to truth. Doubtless he has forgotten that the tiri'f/intil number of the Coinii'lttco present on that occasion was only twelve, and that it hud dwindled to eleven before the vote was taken by Hiram Chisholm, lils(|., withdrawing — a sincere friend of Dr. Croiiyn — and wlio authorises me to state, that had he remained he would most undoubtedly have voted for the original motion. That there iiiay be no misunderstanding 1 beg leave to subjoin a list of the members of the Committee present at that meeting and I challenge Mr. Adams to name any others. 1. Kev. U. Flood; 2. ( J eorge Taylor; H. Hon. (;. .1. (iood- liuo; 4. William Klliot ; T). Henjamin JJayly ; <>. Kdward .\dams; 7. Frederick Rowland; 8. J. K. Labatt ; 9. Hiram Chisholm; 10. J. Hamilton; 11. L. l^awrason ; 12. Charles Monsarrat. Besides the foregoing were the Rav. I'. C Rrough who as cliair- iiian iiad only a casting vote, which privilege he had no occasion to t'xercise ; also the Rev. M. M. Dilhm and Dr. Cronyn, who from (heir position could not vote. Messrs. Hurst and Rallantine were iilso present as visitors but iK^t members of the Committ»;e. Having no desire to engage in a discussion invbL.ng privates iliaracter, I content myself with noticing merely so much of Mr. Adams' letter as refers to mattcsrs with which I have had a \)or- sonal connection, and which contains statements I have had the fullest opportunity of contradicting. I am Sir, Vour obedient Servant, CHARLES M()NSARj{ AT Till-: KI'lSCOI'Al. C(>NTia)Vh:i?SV. 7<> ihe Knyn's conduct with THE EPI8C0PAT, f!0NTR0VER8Y. 7f» regard to the purchase of the celebrated " corner lot." According to this letter of Mr. ^lousarrat's it appeared that i)r. Oonyn was exonerated by the local committee of the Church Colonial Society, in this city, from all impropriety with regard to the purchase of this lot, in consequence of a resolution, which they received from the Parent Committee in J'^ngland, which states that it exonerated Dr. Cronyn, in conseciueuee of the statements which he himself had made, and which was transmitted to London, C. W. Now, many think that this is exparte, and that it is due to the public, in consequence of the position which he now holds — ho is a candidate for the Bishopric — that his friends ought to produce a copy of the letter which he wrote to England, in vindication of his conduct. Dr. Cronyn also may have been a party to the composition of this exonerating resolution. To us and many others it now appears, in consequence of what has lately transpired — 1 allude to the /art of his having concealed from the con)mittee which sat in January, lHi)[), for the purpose of securing this lot for the ('olonial Society, the knowledge which he possessed at the time, of the intention of his son who was then in England, and who consequently would be before any one, in making arrangements for its purchase, which, no matter what friends say, does not, and never can bear the mark of either candour, or straightforward numly conduct in any one, much less a Clergyman — it appears that the amendment, moved by 31 r. Klliot, in conse((uence of the knowledge which ho possessed of these facts, would have been the proper one for adoption, under the cir- cumstances. It was this amendment, which, no matter what Mr. Monserrat says, excited the ire and indignation of the llev. (lentlc- man- and caused hioi twice to leave the room in a highly excited sUite, as he well knew that it was tantamount to a censure. Many of the mciubers voted for this amendment. We would be glad to know, would the i*arent (!ommittee have .so honorably acquitted him if they had been put in possession of this fact y As Dr. Cronyn thinks himself a proper person to be a liisliop. I beg to refer my readers to the (lualifieations which St. ran! in histirst epistle to Timothy, 'M chapter 1 to 7th ver.s(;, lays down as roiiuisite for that oflico, amongst the rest he says, that a Hish(jp ought to be blameless, vigilant, sober, hohpitabie, not /Jl/t/ii/ lucre, patient, and one that ruleth well liis own hou.-e, li/; should fmrc (I ,/ni>({ rrjiorf of thon wliir/i an- icithunt, not a brawler, not eovetouis. I beg to remain, Vour obedient servant. SCHl TATOi: FRKK PKKSS STKAM I'HI.NTINO OKKICK.