f 
 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO A 
 
 i T HE I IFt ID LETTER 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 II REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF MONTREAL 
 
 And Metropolitan of Canada, 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 [^Bishops and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada, 
 
 BY 
 
 I. HELLMUTH, D.IX, 
 
 AKCHDKACON OF HURON, AND ASST. MINISTER OP ST. PAUL’S CATHRDRAI., LONDON, C. W . 
 
 TO WHICH IS APPENDED 
 
 “ THE THIRD LETTER” 
 
 OF THE LORD BISHOP OF MONTREAL.. 
 
 QUEBEC: 
 
 PRINTED BY MIDDLETON AND DAWSON, SHAWLS BUILDINGS, LOWER TOWN. 
 
 1862 . 
 
No. 3. 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO A 
 
 T H I !R 3D HL-IETTEZR 
 
 i 
 
 OF THE 
 
 RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF MONTREAL, 
 
 And Metropolitan of Canada, 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 Bishops and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland in Canada, 
 
 BY 
 
 I. HELLMUTH, D.D., 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF HURON, AND ASST. MINISTER OF ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL, LONDON, C. W., 
 
 TO WHICH IS APPENDED 
 
 “ THE THIRD LETTER” 
 
 OP THE LORD BISHOP OP MONTREAL. 
 
 QUEBEC: 
 
 PRINTED BY MIDDLETON AND DAWSON, SHAW’S BUILDINGS, LOWEP. TOWN. 
 
 1862. 
 
A T H l R I) REPLY 
 
 Quebec, Aug. 9, 1862. 
 
 My Lord Bishop,— 
 
 Although I have by incontestable proofs, nay, even by Your Lordships 
 own unwitting admissions, cleared my character as a Christian and a Minister 
 of the Gospel, from every charge and insinuation with which, from your exal¬ 
 ted position as Metropolitan, you might fain have obscured it, you seem to 
 be determined not to let the subject rest where it had been successfully and 
 triumphantly placed on the issues of my “ replies.” 
 
 For a third time you have recurred to the same attack. But I am confident 
 that for a third time I can satisfactorily dispose of all that is contained in 
 Your Lordship’s third Pastoral. 
 
 I shall on this occasion, as before, append your Pastoral to my answer, that 
 the public, to which you have appealed, may be fully and fairly furnished 
 with the controversy as it stands, and pronounce their verdict accordingly. 
 
 In my inmost heart, I deplore this controversy, but the onus rests upon Your 
 Lordship, whose efforts to defame my fair name, and that of my respected 
 father-in-law, Gen. Evans, both in private and in public, by all the means 
 and influence in your power, and at all hazards, demanded our vindication.— 
 And it will be easily conceived that it is not a little difficult to write calmly 
 under such painful and aggravated circumstances, into which I am again 
 forced in self-defence to enter by your Lordship’s continued attacks. 
 
 “ As yet your Lordship has not even attempted to disprove the correctness of 
 my remarks at the Islington meeting respecting (1) “ the teaching of Trinity 
 College , Toronto ,” [which is the only institution I referred to in my tpeech,] 
 and (2) “ the paucity of Evangelical men in the British North American 
 Colonies generally .” 
 
4 
 
 Your Lordship, in your third letter, on page 8, admits that you understand 
 the sense attached by me to the word “ Evangelical and that such li Evan¬ 
 gelical men” are few in number in Canada, I have your Lordship s own au¬ 
 thority, as I have conclusively shown in my No. II. Reply, pages 6 and 7, in 
 the following words :— 
 
 But, My Lord, have you not said more as to the paucity of ‘‘ Evangelical 
 men” in Canada, than I have ever ventured to say ? As examples of en¬ 
 couragement held out to Evangelical men” in Canada, your Lordship has 
 specified places in the Province, saying : “ Evangelical meD, as such, may not 
 be as abundant as the Archdeacon wishes, yet he will allow they are to be 
 fourd in many most important places. The Cathedral at Toronto and all the 
 churches at Kingston have long been so filled, that at London, three in Mon¬ 
 treal, one in Quebec, one in Hamilton, all principal cities in the Province.” 
 
 “ You assign thus to the most populous protestant city in Canada, viz; To¬ 
 ronto, where there are 23 clergymen, 3 Evangelical men,—all on the Cathe¬ 
 dral staff; to the city of Montreal, where there are 12 or 13 clergymen, you as 
 sign three ; to the city of Quebec, where there are 12 Clergymen, your 
 Lordship assigns one , <fcc. &c. &c. This is your Lordship’s own estimate.” 
 
 At any rate, to say the least, the two subjects—which are the questions at 
 issue, viz. : (1) “ The teaching of Trinity College , Toronto ,” and (2) u The 
 paucity of Evangelical men in the Province ,” your Lordship professes com¬ 
 parative ignorance of. 
 
 Of the former, on page 5, of your first Pastoral, you say : “ I am not suffi¬ 
 ciently master of this subject in its present state to enter into a detailed re¬ 
 view of it and of the latter, on page 8, of your third Pastoral, you say . 
 (exempting your own Diocese.) •* I am not in a condition to say if that is the 
 case in Canada generally.” 
 
 Has it never occurred to your Lordship that these very two subjects, of 
 which you profess comparative ignorance, are yet those, on which you charge 
 me with misrepresentation, and that it is on the ground of invalidating my 
 testimony regarding them, that your Lordship justifies your attack upon my 
 personal character ? 
 
 Need I say that these two subjects are of vital importance to the Church in 
 Canada ? 
 
 And I shall show that your Lordship had ample time and opportunity of 
 becoming master of both :— 
 
 As early as the 21st of July, 1860, the Lord Bishop of Huron Issued a Pas¬ 
 toral to the Clergy and Laity of his Diocese, which was re-published in extenso 
 
5 
 
 in the Toronto “ Ecclesiastical Gazette,” August 1st., I860, in which the Bishop 
 animadverts on “ the dangerous teaching of Trinity College and that 14 he 
 could not in his soul approve of it 
 
 On the 29th of August, 1860, the Bishop of Huron published a “ second let¬ 
 ter,” and the following is the summary of 11 the dangerous teaching” to which 
 not only the Bishop of Huron, but many other sound Protestants object :— 
 
 “ ‘ Baptismal regeneration in the highest sense.'* ‘ The power of the Priest 
 judicially and absolutely to remit sins.* 4 The instrumentality of the Virgin 
 Mary in the work of human salvation , and the typical relation of Miriam to 
 her* 1 The probable intercession of departed saints with God for us.* 
 
 * The conveyance of the consecrated elements to all sick members of the 
 Church after every celebration of the Eucharist (a thing forbidden by our 
 28th Article) is said to be one of those admirable early usages which our 
 Reformers did not venture to restore , and one of those good things in which 
 our liberty was abridged at the Reformation * Such a view of the 
 Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as represents the recipient as 1 partaking 
 of the glorified humanity of our Lord,* and in the official defence of 
 which are embodied such statements as the following — 1 Heaven waits and 
 expects the Priest*s sentence here on earth.* ‘ The Apostles , and in them all 
 priests , were made God*s vicegerents here on earth , in his name and stead to 
 retain or remit sins j and 1 where the Priest absolves , God absolves / P ” 
 
 In September, 1860, Provost Whitaker addressed 41 two letters to the Lord 
 Bishop of Toronto in reply to the charges against the Theological teaching of 
 Trinity College, Toronto.” 
 
 Again, as late as last May, the Bishop of Huron published his “ Objections 
 to the Theological teaching of Trinity College, as set forth in the letters of 
 Provost Whitaker, published with the authority of the Corporation of Trinity 
 College.” 
 
 Your Lordship could have also had no difficulty in ascertaining, to a sufficient 
 extent , the number of Clergy—in the admitted sense 11 Evangelical,”—at 
 least, in the Diocese of Toronto, by simply consulting the report of the pro¬ 
 ceedings of the Toronto Synod of 1861, when a vote of confidence in the 
 Tractarian teaching of Trinity College actually passed by 54 clerical votes 
 against 14! ! 
 
 Will your Lordship pardon the impression which forces itself upon my mind, 
 that had you devoted to acquiring a complete knowledge of the questions 
 under discussion, half the time and labor you have expended in trying to make 
 
6 
 
 out a case against me, personally, your Lordship might, ere this, have been 
 14 in a condition to say ” whether my speech at Islington, as explained by me, 
 in reply to a Presbyter,” was in accordance with facts or not, instead of 
 issuing THREE PASTORALS, containing chiefly personal abuse, and a con¬ 
 fession, notwithstanding, that you are as yet not in a position to pronounce 
 upon the subject, which, as you allege, “demanded your interference.” 
 
 The Bishop of Huron, however* whose experience in Canada extends over 
 thirty years, corroborates my statements made in England, and in his Charge 
 delivered to his Clergy in June last, he alludes thus to the subject:— 
 
 “ Exception has been taken as to some statements made by the Archdeacon 
 at a meeting in London. I have examined those statements, as explained by 
 the Archdeacon, and so far as the part of Canada with which I have been inti¬ 
 mately acquainted for nearly thirty years is concerned, I feel assured that 
 his statements are strictly in accordance with facts. With many of the dio¬ 
 ceses in British North America I have had very little or no acquaintance, 
 therefore I cannot from my own knowledge speak of them. But as Dr. Hell- 
 muth has acted for so many years as the representative of the Colonial and 
 Continental Church Society in British North America, I should not be disposed 
 ’ to question his testimony as to the religious state of these dioceses. 
 
 a j think it due to Archdeacon Hellmutk to state here that my confidence in 
 his sincerity, his piety, and veracity is entirely unshaken, and that I shall 
 continue thankfully to avail myself of his valuable services, in which he has 
 proved himself a faithful and efficient laborer. 
 
 a One thing I must not omit to state, that my instructions to Archdeacon 
 Hellmuth were, that he should solicit aid from our brethren at home for an 
 institution which should be thoroughly Protestant and Evangelical, so that 
 hereafter, when the constitution and laws of the institution arc made public, 
 no charge may lie against him of having sought and obtained aid under false 
 pretences.” 
 
 From the foregoing facts, deduced even from your Lordship’s own admis¬ 
 sions, no justification whatsoever remains for the issue of your three Encyclical 
 letters. 
 
 Under these circumstances, is it possible to avoid the painful conclusion that 
 personal hostility may have induced you to hazard assertions against my 
 character, which you have entirely failed to substantiate? while I have proved, 
 by incontrovertible facts, documentary evidence, and by an appeal to living 
 witnesses, that they are as groundless as they arc harsh and unjustifiable. 
 
 Had I not a right to look for more just treatment at your Lordship’s hand ? 
 And when before the bar of public opinion I had fully absolved myself, I 
 looked for that reparation which is due to one who has been unjustly accused. 
 
7 
 
 l will now take up, seriatim, the different points which require any notice or 
 reply from me. 
 
 The first point to which I shall advert is the case of the Rev. Mr.-: 
 
 In your Lordship’s former Pastorals you exhibit him as a man who had 
 u signed a document confessing that he had spoken an absolute untruth.” 
 
 And in your last, your Lordship says : u That the circumstances of his case 
 were so publicly talked of when you were at Kingston, that you could not help 
 being acquainted with them.” 
 
 In your Lordship’s eye then, he would still be an untruthful person. There 
 can be no other conclusion. 
 
 With what consistency, with what weight, I would respectfully ask, could 
 your Lordship put a question to him as far back as the 13?A of May last , on 
 which to impugn my straightforwardness? 
 
 Relying solely on the testimony of a person of no credibility, in your Lord- 
 ship's eyes , you have attempted to shew the little value of mine! 
 
 I need not notice the hearsay evidence of Mr. John R. Cartwright—a lad the 
 public will probably be surprised to learn, of some 16 or 17 summers—who 
 comes to your Lordship’s assistance. 
 
 It would be trifling with the patience of the public, if I attended further to 
 this young gentleman. 
 
 The real point at issue in this case is, that your Lordship is desirous of prov¬ 
 ing to your Bishops and Clergy, that while I ostensibly recommended the Rev. 
 Mr. —— to leave his mission, I at the same time in reality advised him to the 
 contrary ; and to establish this, you wrote to him as lar back as the 13th of 
 May, putting the following question to him 
 
 “ I have been told that the Archdeacon proposed another solution of your 
 difficulty to you. That he told you, you must resign because a promise had 
 been given to certain influential parties connected with—that you should do so, 
 but that he recommended you to get up a petition from some of your congre¬ 
 gation to have you re-instated, and then you could be re-appointed, and all 
 would be settled. May I ash you whether this is a fact or not ?” 
 
 To this the Rev. Mr.-replies at the close of his letter to your Lordship 
 
 of the 8th of July (on page 5 of your last Pastoral) “ I can now only add 
 that your question was 1 substantially’ correct.” 
 
 But what does the Rev. Mr, - say in his letter of the same date—the 8th 
 
 of July — to me? 
 
8 
 
 Let us see. 
 
 He says:— 
 
 “ Your advice to me was two-fold :—1st. For the sake of his—(parishioners) it 
 would be better to resign unconditionally ;* to leave the mission without 
 any understanding between the people and myself, and then all would be 
 right, &c., &c., as I stated in my letter to the Bishop of Ontario ; viz.‘ That 
 at the end of three months the people would call me back/ 
 
 2ndly. As regards myself \ under all the circumstances it would be better to 
 leave without any idea of returning, aud I should certainly be happier in the 
 Diocese of Huron ; and you most kindly represented my case to the Bishop of 
 Huron. You gave me your advice as a friend.” 
 
 In a letter I wrote to the Rev. Mr. —- on the I4th ult., I expressed a wish 
 that he should comply with your Lordship’s request by sending you all my 
 correspondence with him, in the following words :— 
 
 a j b ave no objection to your sending all my communications to the Bishop 
 of Montreal; nay, I would rather you did so, and you had better send him also 
 exact copies of your’s to me, and that of the Bishop of Ontario on this matter.’’ 
 
 I also told him in the same letter, with regard to anything he marked private, 
 that “ that which affects the character of man cannot be considered private, 
 and that if I made use of his communications it would only be in self-defence.” 
 To this intention on my part he never offered any objection. 
 
 Your Lordship has strangely withheld the letter of the Revd. Mr,- 
 
 addressed by him to the Bishop of Ontario as far back as the 2nd of December 
 last, a copy of which was sent to you by him, prior to the issue of your last 
 Pastoral, in which the following words occur as having proceeded from me :— 
 “ You have promised to leave unconditionally ; leave unconditionally .” 
 This evidence, however strong, is further corroborated by circumstances about 
 which there can be no mistake. The fact of my having spoken to the Bishop 
 of Huron to receive him in his diocese, which of course I would not have done 
 had I not expected, that in compliance with my advice to him, he would “ leave 
 his mission unconditionally .” 
 
 As an additional proof that that was the nature of my advice to him, and 
 that he was apparently willing to follow it, I give another quotation from his 
 letter to me of the 8th of July last, which runs thus 
 
 What is in italics is underlined in the original. 
 
•« 1 sold and gave away some of my property, and packed up a part. I 
 offered my services to the Rev. Mr. M., for board and lodging, without any 
 earthly prospect. I applied for my 1 bene decessit.’ ” 
 
 In another note he says 
 
 11 1 did my utmost to leave.” 
 
 Must it not be then by the desire of his own Bishop that he remains where he 
 still is? 
 
 How I could have “ told him to get up a petition from some of his con- 
 il gregation and then he would be reappointed” and on the same day, and at 
 “ the same time, advise him as a friend unconditionally to leave the mission 
 “ without any understanding between the people and himself” and, “ under 
 
 all the circumstances, that it would be better for him to leave without any 
 u idea of returning ,” I leave to the judgment of the reader ! 
 
 I trust I have effectually disposed of this case. 
 
 Although scarcely expecting, even by the complete vindication of myself 
 from every charge you brought against me, to remove your Lordship’s preju¬ 
 dices—as every successful refutation of your attacks only increases the awk¬ 
 wardness of your position—yet befoie the tribunal of public opinion, to which 
 your Lordship has appealed, I feel confident that my replies must be both 
 satisfactory and convincing. 
 
 The next point in your Lordship’s last Pastoral is one which I amunwillingly 
 forced to notice again. 
 
 After your Lordship had implicated General Evans in the charges of “ a 
 manoeuvre,” and “ an attempt to take you in ” ; after you had defamed him 
 equally with myself to the Bishop of Huron, in relation to the Sherbrooke 
 street Church, in the following words, which the Bishop is ready most solemnly 
 to attest as having been uttered by you—notwithstanding your Lordship’s 
 denial—viz.: " He ” [i. e. your Lordship] “ had seen through the trap which 
 “ was thus laid for him, and discovered that General Evans and Dr. Hell- 
 ** muth had conspired to obtain from him his consent to a measure which was 
 11 only intended to enhance the value of General Evans ’ property and to 
 il obtain a church in the city for his son-in-law ; but which would , in the end, 
 11 prove highly injurious to the church ;” and after extricating yourself from 
 this difficulty, and its possible legal consequences by denying the correctness 
 of the Bishop of Huron’s statement, I was certainly not prepared for your 
 Lordship’s assertion that Gen. Evans’ statement of having had two interviews 
 with you on the subject of Sherbrooke street Church was untrue. 
 
10 
 
 1. You would doubt my veracity ; 
 
 2. You impugn the testimony of the Bishop of Huron ; 
 
 3. And now you refuse to believe General Evans. 
 
 What further imputations may we expect at your Lordship's hands? 
 
 In my “ No. 2 Reply, ” page 9, I gave the following message from Gen. 
 Evans to your Lordship, at his request:— 
 
 “He” [i. e. Gen. Evans] “ begs me to remind your Lordship of two long 
 interviews with him on the subject of the Church, instead of “ one short one” 
 
 This statement from the General, because it does not agree with your Lord¬ 
 ship's journal and memory, you characterize, in the most unqualified terms, as 
 4 ‘ an entire invention of circumstances,” 
 
 My Lord, it need hardly be said that we are not responsible for the defects 
 or omissions of your journal. It may record some things and omit others. 
 And yet on the strength of such negative testimony as this, you would venture 
 to charge us with untruth , sayiug on page 6 of your third Pastoral 
 
 “Now, had this been true, I admit it would have gone very far to have 
 destroyed the whole credit of my evidence.” 
 
 I shall now bring in a third witness to confirm the fact that the General 
 had an evening besides a morning interview with you, on the subject of the 
 Sherbrooke street Church. 
 
 I have been unwilling to bring before the public the names of private 
 individuals; but a letter lately received by Gen. Evans from his daughter, 
 Mrs. Crooks, is so pointedly and positively in accordance with the General's 
 statement of the interviews referred to, that I have no alternative left but to 
 publish an extract from it, in which the subject is alluded to in the following 
 terms:— 
 
 “I have just read the Metropolitan's third Pastoral, and must say I was 
 surprised and grieved at his positive denial of your statement that he spent an 
 evening with us in Beaver Hall Terrace, for the purpose of discussing your 
 project of building a church on Sherbrooke street. 
 
 lt I remember distinctly his coming for that purpose, and the conversation 
 occupying a considerable space of time ; also a similar meeting for the same 
 purpose one morning. I cannot tax my memory with the exact dates of the 
 meetings in question, but that his Lordship had them 1 have no hesitation in 
 raying.” 
 
 Moreover, on comparing the dates of the different interviews by your 
 
 txi'ij djwd. * 'estfs in ios&w »dj wi 
 
11 
 
 Lordship, discrepancies appear, which shew that there could not have been 
 that haste with which your Lordship.would clothe the transaction, and so draw 
 an inference that General Evans and I were in haste to “ take you in,”—not 
 to enter upon the well known tact that the General had in contemplation the 
 building of a Church, prior to your Lordship’s advent to this country. 
 
 Your Lordship admits two interviews with me on the 8th and 9th of Jan¬ 
 uary, 1852, and on the day of your last interview with me, (i. ethe 9th of 
 January , 1852 ,) the Germans presented you with an address. 
 
 A kind friend seeing this, drew my attention to the “ Montreal Gazette ” of 
 the 14th of January, 1852, where it is thus recorded 
 
 u The following address was presented to Bishop Fulford on New Year s Day f 
 (not the 9th), by a large uurnber of the German residents of the city, members 
 of the English Church.” 
 
 However, without placing any great value upon this, it will be admitted by 
 all reasonable people that documentary evidence, and three living witnesses f 
 ought to convince yonr Lordship that you arc in error on this head also. 
 
 I am truly astonished that your Lordship should have ventured to allude 
 again to my efforts in connection with Father Chiniquy’s colony of converts in 
 Illinois. I rejoice in the consciousness, and in the grateful testimony of, I may 
 say, all the converts, that through my humble instrumentality hundreds were 
 effectually relieved in their famishing and starving condition, while it was, 
 you compel mo to say, through my unwearied exertions, that the American 
 Church Missionary Society established the Missions under the excellent Dr. 
 Williamson. 
 
 The only charitable conclusion I can come to for your broaching the subject, 
 is that you may have overlooked what I said on this head in my first “ Reply " 
 at page 10, and in the Appendix B. of it, where I distinctly stated, that “the 
 interest 1 took In the wonderful movement of several hundred French Cana¬ 
 dian families leaving the Church of Rome, through the instrumentality of 
 Father Chiniquy, had no reference to the man himself. (Vide Appendix B., 
 1st Reply.) 
 
 Whatever Pastor Chiniquy may be now, (not that I know anything against 
 him), our appeal for aid some three years ago, to help the movement ol winch 
 he was the instrument, teas not for him personally, hut for his suffering colony 
 of converts, consisting of several hundred families. 
 
 i 
 
12 
 
 The fact that hundreds of these converts from Rome were saved from star¬ 
 vation by the means that were obtained for their relief, shows how uncalled for 
 this aspersion is, that the aid sought and obtained was an imposition upon “the 
 credulous English public.” 
 
 Alas 1 if our exertions and sacrifices in the cause of Christ and of humanity 
 are to be suspended until we are infallibly certified of the permanent worthi¬ 
 ness of the objects of them, we might at once set aside the lofty examples set 
 before us by our Lord, and his immediate followers, and cease from every 
 Christian and philanthropic enterprise ! 
 
 But even at the risk of being a little tedious, I will reiterate here all I have 
 said on this subject in my first Reply :— 
 
 “ Your Lordship next (in page 7) sneers at the efforts made by me on behalf 
 of Pastor Chiniquy’s French converts from Romanism, in Illinois, U.S. Like 
 the rest of your Lordship’s insinuations, they are beside the question at issue, 
 and derive importance only from your Lordship’s high office and position. In 
 these efforts I had the happiness of the support of the Bishop of Huron (who 
 accompanied me to the field of labor) and of other Christian friends. The 
 course taken is its own vindication. I only deeply regret that a movement 
 which has been manifestly blessed, where there are now several Episcopal 
 congregations under the Rev. Dr. Williamson, a clergyman well known to 
 your Lordship, should have provoked in your mind a sentiment so different 
 from what might have been expected, from the successful exertions resulting 
 in the relief of a starving population. I give in the Appendix (B) a brief 
 statement on this head. From app. B :— 
 
 “ The interest I took in the wonderful movement of several hundred French 
 Canadian families leaving the Church of Rome, through the instrumentality of 
 Pastor Chiniquy, had no reference to the man himself . 
 
 “I felt, as a Protestant and a Christian minister, a deep and lively interest in 
 the spiritual welfare of so large a body of French Roman Catholics, who had 
 renounced the errors of the Church of Rome. I went several times from Quebec 
 to Illinois, a distance of twelve hundred miles, with no other object than 
 to afford them aid, when I heard of the persecutions they had suffered for the 
 truth’s sake, and of the famine which wasreduciug them to starvation. The 
 Bishop of Huron accompanied me at my first visit to St. Ann’s and Kankakee, 
 when Pastor Chiniquy was absent. We reached St. Ann’s on a Tuesday, the 
 afternoon of a cold December day, when the people had no expectations of our 
 arrival. On entering the place we heard the sound of a little bell, summoning 
 the new converts to the Protestant faith, to their chapel; and to our agreeable 
 surprise, although it was a week-day, and some of the people had to come a 
 distance of five to ten miles, poorly clad and ill fed, there could not have been 
 
 v 
 
13 
 
 fewer than from fire hundred to six hundred devout worshippers in the chapel 
 The Bishop of Huron and myself were privileged to preach to this interesting 
 people, who listened with delight to the simple word of God, and we were both 
 convinced that it was a movement owned of God. We also visited the schools 
 and found them well attended, and the teachers labouring to instruct the 
 children in the truths of the gospel. Such a sight can never be forgotten by 
 those who really feel an interest in the extension of the gospel ; nor could it 
 fail to produce in them that sympathy and interest which are leading charac¬ 
 teristics of the truth, of which St. John declares, li By this we know that we 
 have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.” 
 
 “ After careful investigation by the Bishop and myself, both at St. Ann’s and 
 Kankakee, we were satisfied on the one hand that the movement was genuine, 
 and on the other that the people were suffering frightfully from the effects of 
 the famine—a fact which has called forth the sympathy of Christians on both 
 sides of the Atlantic. It would have been inhuman had not the Bishop and 
 myself, who were eye-witnesses, appealed to England on behalf of this suffering 
 people ; and I am thankful to say, that the appeal made in their behalf was 
 not only responded to from England, but also from Canada. I subsequently 
 spent several weeks in that colony, visiting most of the settlements ; and so 
 deeply was I interested in their spiritual welfare, and so strongly did I feel 
 the necessity of their having tried and experienced teachers of gospel truth, 
 that I went to New York, and submitted to the excellent Dr. Tyng, and to 
 other gentlemen connected with the American Church Society, the necessity of 
 something being done for the permanent instruction of this people. Dr. Tyng 
 took the trouble of visiting the colony in person, and returned to New York 
 with the determination to exert himself on their behalf. I rejoice greatly in 
 the consciousness that by the blessing of God ray labours in this department 
 have not been in vain. If your Lordship will take the trouble to enquire, you 
 will find that the Rev. Dr. Williamson, who was formerly connected with the 
 Sabrevois mission, is labouring most successfully among the French converts. 
 Several Episcopal congregations have been gathered in through his instru¬ 
 mentality. Sunday schools are also established ; and as he wants more clerical 
 help, he applied to me for such, previous to my leaving for England last 
 autumn, making special mention of the Rev. A. A. Allen, his successor at 
 Sabrevois, who he thought, would carry on with him this work of God.” 
 
 Your Lordship has devoted several pages in the third Pastoral to the subject 
 of the Metropolitan Patent, and what passed in Quebec when we met your 
 Lordship at the residence of the Bishop of Quebec. 
 
 In answer to this I would beg to direct your Lordship’s attention to the 
 subjoined letter from one of the Quebec Delegates to the Provincial Synod, 
 which speaks for itself, and with sufficient clearness shews that I have given a 
 correct version of the matter in my No. If. Reply, on pages 4 and 5 :— 
 
14 
 
 “ Quebec, July 30th, 1862. 
 
 *j Mr DKA.it Dk. Ukluiuth,— TTTT^ i 
 
 “ A8 a Delegate to the Diocesan Synod of Quebec, present at the meeting 
 held in April, 1861, at the residence of the Bishop of Quebec, to consider the 
 Draft of Letters Patent appointing a Metropolitan, I think it right with refer¬ 
 ence to that part of the subsequent correspondence between his Lordship the 
 Metropolitan and yourself which relates to the Patent, including his recent 
 Letter, to state that my recollection of the discussion which took place at the 
 meeting in question coincides with the statement of it given upon the 4th and 
 5th pages of your reply to his Lordship’s second letter. My impression was at 
 the time, shared I believe by most if not all the others present at the meeting, 
 that his Lordship’s proceedings with respect to the draft of the Patent were 
 entirely voluntary, and I was not aware until afterwards of the existence of 
 the instructions from the Colonial Secretary to which you refer. 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 (Signed,) C. N. Montizajkbert.” 
 
 “ To the Venerable 
 
 Archdeacon Hellmuth, D.D.’’ 
 
 There is another mistake into which your Lordship has been led by giving 
 too ready an ear to mere hearsay reports. 
 
 On page 12 of your third Pastoral, you say with regard to the subject of the 
 Patent at the Provincial Synod : 
 
 “ It had been intended that I should have played a more prominent part, 
 and that I was entrusted by those who acted with me, with some Resolutions 
 which I was to move, &c., &c.” 
 
 Now, My Lord, there is not the slightest foundation for what you have 
 thus heard, and I appeal to all the Quebec Delegates as to the truth of what 
 I here assert. 
 
 To carry out the following Resolution which was unanimously passed at the 
 Quebec Diocesan Synod in 1861 :— 
 
 “Moved by Mr. H. S. Scott , seconded by the Revd. H. Roe:— a That it be 
 an instruction to the delegates of the Provincial Synod to endeavour to pro¬ 
 cure such modification of the authority conferred upon the Metropolitan , by 
 the 1 letters patent ,’ as may be necessary to protect the rights and privileges 
 of the Diocesan Synods 77 — 
 
The Quebec ^legates, several weeks before the meeting .of the Provincial 
 synod met and resolved to select, not me, but the late lamented Dr. Falloon 
 to be he mover and H.S. Scott, Esq., to be the seconder, in order to carry 
 o« the instructions embodied in the above ; and by consulting the “ Journa! 
 of the proceedings of the first Provincial Synod,” your Lordship will find 
 accordingly, on page 25, the following: 
 
 “ NOTICE OF MOTION. 
 
 “ The Rev. Dr. Falloon gave notice that he would, at the earliest fitting 
 opportunity, move a Resolution respecting the Letters Patent.” 
 
 The rest of the hearsay reports, and the assertions without proof of ill- 
 disposed persons, from whatever quarter, are of the same value. 
 
 I was ignorant until now, that I have been so closely watched by your 
 Lordship for eleven years, in my various, and I may say active, responsible, 
 
 . ' ,™ US dut,C9 ’ an<1 that ln conspicuous fields; and yet, although you 
 
 ave put the worst possible construction upon all my labours and motives you 
 have not been able to substantiate a single thing against me. To God alone 
 
 be all the praise, whose grace is ever all-sufficient, and who enabled me to 
 stand this fiery ordeal! 
 
 For a third time I have completed the painful task of meeting every charge 
 and insinuation of your Lordship, and it will be my duty, so long as you shall 
 continue to assail me, to defend myself, and I am confident with similar success. 
 
 I do not hide it, that I am jealous of anything and everything which would 
 interfere with my privileges as a British subject or my legitimate liberty as a 
 clergyman of the Reformed Church of England. 
 
 Will your Lordship permit me, in conclusion, for your own sake, and the 
 Church’s sake-thougb your inferior in office-to hope that I shall not unduly 
 trench upon the deference due to Metropolitan authority, if suggesting for 
 grave and humble enquiry, whether it is not possible for the highest ecclesias¬ 
 tical functionary—being fallible—to err at times, in Pastorals or otherwise by 
 assuming a position, and attributes of irresponsibility, incompatible with the 
 recognized principles of our Protestant liberty ? 
 
 Did we not live under British protection, might we not well tremble at the 
 recent assumption of such a power by your Lordship ? 
 
 For whose standing or reputation would be safe that incurred your Lord- 
 ship’s displeasure ? 
 
16 
 
 May not the assumption of such a power in our Church be but the germ of 
 that absolutism, which, in its full development, would reduce us to the abjec 
 condition, where all power is concentrated in one poor mortal an in w i 
 the several parts only perform their functions in absolute subordination to the 
 
 supreme central will ? 
 
 When such power is attempted to be exercised in this 19th Century by an 
 English Colonial Bishop, is it nothigh time to check so dangerous an encroach- 
 meat upon our liberties ? 
 
 I feel justified, my Lord, in saying that the more I think of your unjust 
 and unprecedented proceedings against me, the more am I constrained toregre 
 that you should have assumed a spiritual jurisdiction but little short of the 
 most despotic that the Church of Rome arrogated to herself in the most ignorant 
 of the middle ages. 
 
 If a Prelate has it in his power, without even the semblance of a Court, a 
 Commission, or a Synod, to assail in private, and officially to defame in public, 
 without an iota of evidence, the personal character of a clergyman of another 
 Diocese-who enjoys the full confidence and approval of his own Bishop-simply 
 because he has dared to give utterance to opinions not agreeable to the Metropo¬ 
 litan, or from feelings of personal dislike, originating, perhaps from prejudice 
 or party feeling, the sooner such power is curtailed and its sphere of action more 
 consonant with the Protestant principles of Our Church defined, the better for 
 the Gospel ; the happier for the safety and liberty of the Clergy, and for the 
 character and reputation of our beloved Reformed Church of England. 
 
 « Resting in the Lord and waiting patiently for him, who shall bring forth 
 my righteousness as the light, and my judgment as the noonday,” 
 
 via 
 
 I remain, 
 
 Your Lordship’s obt. servt., 
 
 oil* dJ vu 
 
 I. HELLMUTH. 
 
 The Right Revd. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Montreal 
 and Metropolitan. 
 
A THIRD LETTER 
 
 TO THK 
 
 BISHOPS AND CLERGY 
 
 OP THK 
 
 Mnitcb 4LI)urcl) of €nglani> aiti ) Ireland 
 
 FRANCIS FULFORD, D. D., 
 
 LORD BISHOP OP MONTREAL AND METROPOLITAN. 
 
 
 iltontreal; 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, ST. NICHOLAS STREET. 
 
 1862 . 
 
A THIRD LETTER, 
 
 See IIocss, Montreal, 15th July, 1862. 
 
 Right Ret. and Rev. Brethren, 
 
 Absence Irom borne, and some delay in the receipt of letters has 
 caused me to be later, than I ought to have been in noticing some o’f £ 
 taementsrn a second letter recently published by Archdeacon Hell- 
 muth , while it has g.ven time to him and his friends in various ways to 
 
 faring r nCe ‘° indig “ ati0n and COffl P l8int8 gainst me for ven 
 turmg to impugn the reliability of his testimony. I think, however 
 
 tha n u,r r rr n is caimiy “ to 
 
 that unprejudiced minds will come to the conclusion that it was no 
 without some reason! expressed myself, as I did, in my first ietter to 
 
 Looking at the report of his speech at Islington, which he acknow 
 e ged to be substantially correct, and which he allowed to go forth 
 .thou correction or explanation, there can be no question that it was 
 
 “tied" 1 ayinteD<led ’ ‘ OCOn ^ a “ ^sion of unfaithful- 
 
 the Cana, A ** dUU<!8 ’ °“ the great body of 
 
 < lan ergy, and our Ecclesiastical Institutions; and so >t was 
 
 understood and commented upon by « The Record" English newspaper 
 
 witl ATT ° ‘ he ArChdeaC0Q ’ 8 P lans ' an<i ‘he organ of the party’ 
 with which he identifies himself. These statements were made with the 
 
 • " f 7 and raisiD S money, in order to provide a 
 
 remedy for the evil state of which he complained. Now it isconsi 
 dered quite allowable and fair to make and encourage such sweeping 
 
charges against the Church, as a body, but any attempt to show that 
 the testimony of the person making those charges is not always to 
 relied on, is considered a most unchristian and harsh proceeding The 
 Archdeacon complains that I was trying to search out g™unds° f accu- 
 
 sation against him. Whatever inducement I might have had to do so 
 
 a8 a matter of fact I did nothing of the kind. As I s ated 
 former letter, I simply asked the Bishop of Quebec if he would give m • 
 in writing what he had freely given utterance to in the course o 
 versation, uMch once readily consented to do ; and as to the 
 
 cumstances connected with the case of the clergyman, which I men 
 tioned, they were being so publicly talked of when 1 was at Kington 
 and the Archdeacon’s conduct was so much condemned even by thos 
 who had been acting with him, that I could not help being acquainted 
 with them. Wishing to have one important fact verified, I wrote to the 
 
 Rev Mr _himself, the letter which the Archdeacon afterwards pub¬ 
 
 lished and to which he subjoined the following remark 
 
 ' enquiry'can He aUUmllj 
 
 « mony I refer you to the MissionaYy. 
 
 Now as I have good reason to believe that my previous informaUon 
 had some good foundation in fact, I was somewhat surprised at this 
 positive denial. Shortly, however, after the publication of the Arch¬ 
 deacon’s letter I received the following 
 
 Kingston, 23rd June, 1862. 
 
 <*Mt Lord-I hope you will pardon the liberty that I, a perfect 
 
 1 .,. , t , rn ct however that the subject on 
 
 stranger, take in writing to you. I trust, However, iu 
 
 which I write, is of sufficient importance to form my excuse. 
 
 , n„,i„.«.«• ..ply -D, 
 
 At na^cs 10 and 11 I find an account of Mr. --s case, w 
 
 lieve to be untrue. I am well acquainted with Mr. anc sa 
 
5 
 
 , Pr ““ i8ed t0 resi « n bc »«• do S0 , but that he would advise him to 
 , ge “ P “ P ®‘“ 1 °“ ,rom sorae of bis congregation to have him re-in- 
 stated, and then he would be re appointed, and all would be settled ’ 
 
 that Hp ITT,! mC that hC had S6nt your letter t0 Dr ' Hellmutb, and 
 ie .?tt' M T* Wntten t0 him t0 s “y tbat be “'tended to publish 
 
 Hellmutb h W d ?/ 8 n ng ,CaVe - At the SamC time he said tbat Dr. 
 Hellmuth had acted in the way you enquired about, only that your Lord- 
 
 ship s question had a slight verbal inaccuracy. It might give the idea 
 
 all. What Dr. Hellmuth did do was this. He advised Mr_to 
 
 leave his mission for some two or three months. 
 
 ‘‘ Dr Hellmuth has appealed to Mr-in his - Reply,’ and this 
 
 .s his testimony since Dr. Hellmuth’, letter ha, been published .- 
 I may also say that some time last autumn Mr_told me ofthis 
 
 “ a “>«■ p,„. s 
 
 J "° u d LOnfilm tb,f, > and at any rate it is wbat he has stated 
 
 before myself and others more than once. 
 
 “ If Mr - ~ can tell you the answer that Dr. Hellmuth sent on 
 hearing of your Lordship’s question, it might serve to confirm the truth 
 
 “ Again hoping you will pardon the liberty I have taken, 
 
 (i I remain, my Lord, 
 
 14 Yours faithfully, 
 
 John R. Cartwright.** 
 
 I accordingly wrote to the Rev. Mr.-, who sent me the following 
 
 answer:— & 
 
 Kingston, 8th July, 1862. 
 
 “ Mr Lord Bishop,-Y our letter dated July 1st, only reached me last 
 night. I cannot express to you my feelings. I did not answer your 
 etter simply because I did not wish to injure Dr. Hellmuth. I therefore 
 sent your letter to Quebec, that Dr. Hellmuth might answer the ques- 
 ioii, an give your Lordship the necessary information, never think¬ 
 ing that your Lordship's letter to me would be published. 
 
 and 1 CaD n ° W ° Dly a<1<1 that y ° Ur <lue8tion was ‘substantially correct,’ 
 
 “I remain, my Lord Bishop, 
 
 4 * Very sincerely yours, 
 
 This is the testimony of the Missionary, to whom the Archdeacon 
 himself refers me for proof of the truth of his own statement, and it 
 ains the veiy contraiy. I certainly should not have expressed my- 
 
6 
 
 #elf as I (lid respecting the Archdeacon, if I had not had very strong 
 reason to believe that my statements were well founded; and I think the 
 above case bears out anything I have said respecting the manner of his 
 conducting business, and the value of his testimony. As to the charge 
 in connection with the proposal to erect a church for him in Montreal, 
 if I had ever bad the least doubt as to the correctness of my impressions, 
 U would be entirely removed by finding that the only defence, or ex¬ 
 planation, offered was a total misrepresentation of the facta in the Arch¬ 
 deacon’s first letter ; which however he has still further overdone in his 
 
 second. In page 9 he says: 
 
 «It is very strange that your Lordship's memory should be so retentive 
 in some things as to quote with iuverted commas or in italics, what was 
 Lid eleven years ago, while you cannot recollect other circumstances 
 _ very important links in the chain of the particular transaction. 
 
 “ Genl. Evans is in full possession of all his faculties with a striking y 
 clear memory, as all who know him can testify, and he begs me to re¬ 
 mind your Lordship of two long interviews with him on the subject o 
 the Church, instead of ‘ one short one he desires me to call to your recol¬ 
 lection that Mrs. Fulford accompanied your Lordship to spend an even¬ 
 ing at his residence, Beaver Hall Terrace, when your Lordship, he 
 Genl. and myself, during the evening, fully and freely conversed on the 
 subject in question, and the second interview was on the morning you 
 
 Now had this been true, I admit it would have gone very far to have 
 destroyed the whole credit of my evidence. And I own this assertion, 
 “ that I, the Genl. and the Archdeacon, during the evening, fully and 
 freely conversed on the question, while the second interview was on the 
 morning referred to,” did again very much surprise me, even as coming 
 from the Archdeacon. I certainly remembered spending an evening 
 with Mrs. Fulford at the General’s ; but I was also quite sure there 
 was not one word of truth in the statement respecting our having freely 
 conversed on the subject in question. Now besides trusting to a reten¬ 
 tive memory , I have for the last 30 years kept a daily journal,* and upon 
 
 * In page 20 of his first letter, the Archdeacon in allusion to another 
 matter says, “Happily, my Lord, I keep a journal with dates and par¬ 
 ticulars.” I am ready to submit my journal to the inspection of any 
 individual agreed upon, who shall compare it with the Archdeacon s 
 respecting the fact of this evening party. 
 
7 
 
 looking through this, I at last found an entry on the 28th July 1851 
 
 recording th, fac t that, « we drank tea at General Evans’, met beside^ 
 Mr. Hellmutb, Commissary General Robinson and family, and had 
 some music.” The Archdeacon, I remember, himself joined in the sing, 
 mg. This is the only occasion of our having spent an evening at the 
 General s. But as the first proposal I heard about this Church and the 
 offer of the £3000 for its erection, was when the Archdeacon called at 
 my house on the morning of Thursday, Jany. 8th, 1852, I leave you to 
 judge what is the value of the testimony, that the subject in question 
 was freely discussed by us, at an evening party six months before. I 
 find also by my journal, that, having had au interview with Mr. Hellmutb 
 on the 8tb, I called on General Evans on the 9th, which is the only in¬ 
 terview 1 had with him at that time, and was a very short one, because 
 he was unwell, and not able to enter into details of business. And 1 
 again assert that it was not till the following day, after having a-min 
 and again urged the Archdeacon and the General to give their proposi- 
 
 tion in writing, that I was able to arrive at a true understanding of the 
 case. 
 
 Besides meeting my statements, at one time with a positive denial of 
 their truth, to which his own witness, to whom he refers me, gives a 
 direct contradiction ; or at another time by an entire invention of 
 circumstances, as in the conversation which he asserts I had with him 
 aud General Evans, at an evening party at the General’s house, the 
 Archdeacon has, on several occasions, exhibited great tact and ingenuity 
 in drawing off attention from the real point raised by me to some other 
 matter connected with it. For instance, I alluded to the manner in 
 which, some time since, such large sums were obtained by him “from 
 the credulous English public for Father Chiniquy, for whom he vouched, 
 much to the astonishment of many thoughtful people in Cauada.” The 
 Archdeacon, without any reference to Father Chiniquy himself, to 
 whom such large contributions from the members of our Chnrch in 
 England were paid over, goes off to speak of the labors of the Rev. 
 
 Dr. Williamson, a clergyman well known to me, and the success that 
 is attending them. Singularly enough, as a comment upon my allusion 
 to Father Chiniquy, notice appears this week in the newspapers that he 
 has been deposed from the ministry by the authorities oi the Presbyterian 
 Church at Chicago (with which he connected himself shortly after Pr. 
 
8 
 
 Hellmuth’s advocacy of his cause iu England), “ for ^ministerial and 
 unchristian conduct.” 
 
 Again, the Archdeacon in his Islington speech asserted “ that Evange¬ 
 lical men are at a very great discount in those colonies generally.” In 
 noticing this 1 instanced some of the most important posts in all our 
 great cities, that were filled by clergymen whom I knew were con¬ 
 sidered by him to be “ Evangelical.” He argues from this that I admit 
 the truth of the allegation he made. I admit no such thing, for I am 
 not in a condition to say if that is the case in Canada generally ; but 
 1 will assert that in my own diocese, the clergy as a body arc faithfully 
 Evangelical, several of them accepted by me from the Committee of the 
 Colonial Church and School Society,-but not acting as members of a 
 parly • and that, not marked out by any adherence to party-action, on 
 one side or the other, such as he might wish to encourage, it would not 
 be easy for any one to class the clergy of this diocese generally, under 
 distinctive heads, or otherwise than as “ hard-working clergy, godly, 
 good men,” to use his own expressions, with whom any sincere church¬ 
 man might gladly co-operate. But more than this, when quoting from 
 my remarks on this subject, he cites my words : “ But whether the 
 clergy generally come up to the mark as • Evangelical men’ or not, I 
 say it is a positive misrepresentation of the fact.” And then he leaves 
 off with a full stop. Now, what I asserted to be “ a positive misrepre¬ 
 sentation of the fact,” is stated in the continuation of the sentence, 
 which proceeds thus, “ a positive misrepresentation of the fact, and can 
 only be made cither through ignorance or for some party purpose, and 
 to create a sympathy in certain quavers, to assert that there is any 
 general prevalence of what is termed Tractarianism.” And I fearlessly 
 challenge the Archdeacon or the Record'to prove the charge “that 
 several Canadian Dioceses are deeply tainted with the leaven of Tract¬ 
 arianism, or that the local colleges at which the Canadian Clergy 
 receive their training, are almost wholly under this baneful influence.” 
 When, however, the subject was brought forward at the Synod of the 
 Diocese of Huron, the Archdeacon very much modified the force of his 
 speech at Islington, from which the only logical inference was that “ godly, 
 good, and hard-working,” and “Evangelical” men, as he understands 
 them, are identical. But at the Synod he acknowledges that there are 
 /. godly and good men, hard-working clergy,” “ though not what he calls 
 
9 
 
 Evangelical,” in Canada—■“ men with whom he would not hesitate to 
 work lovingly.” It seems to me that this is a more satisfactory defini¬ 
 tion of what our clergy ought to be, than even to be “ in his opinion 
 Evangelical.” And in this sense, we shall, I dare say, all agree that there 
 are too few such men for the work before us. 
 
 One point upon which the Archdeacon insists strongly in his first 
 letter is the approval of him, as testified in the vote of thanks given him 
 on his resigning his Professorship at Bishop's College, and his subsequent 
 appointment as a Trustee by myself and the Bishop of Quebec. As far as 
 I was concerned in these acts I can only say that,, whatever might have 
 been my own opinion of Dr. Hellmuth’s conduct respecting the proposal 
 to erect the Church in Montreal, yet my judgment of his general char¬ 
 acter has not been formed from that incident alone, and I always under¬ 
 stood his services as Hebrew Professor had been useful to the College, 
 and would be difficult to replace, and deserved the thanks of the Cor¬ 
 poration ; and I had never the least wish to act unjustly towards him. 
 A® to the appointment to the Trusteeship, which took place about the 
 same time, March 15, 1854, the Trustees are nominated by the Bishop of 
 Quebec and myself ; and it has always been understood, that we should 
 each select the persons from our respective dioceses, who should 
 receive our joint nomination. The Bishop of Quebec sent me a nomina¬ 
 tion for Dr. Hellmuth, with a letter, hoping that I would unite in 
 appointing him, which I did. But very soon after Dr. Hellmuth left 
 Canada, having resigned all his ecclesiastical offices here, and by the 
 rules of the Charter of the College, his appointment as Trustee became 
 void, now about seven years ago. And I have never, from that day to 
 this, heard the slightest intimation of any re-appointment. 
 
 One other matter I must notice, and I am the more anxious to do so, 
 because it more directly concerns the Province at large, and my conduct 
 in connection with the discussions which took place respecting my 
 Patent as Metropolitan. 
 
 The Archdeacon in his first letter wished to make it appear that in 
 bringing any charges against him for his attacks upon the Canadian 
 Church, I was actuated by resentment, caused by the active part he 
 took in opposing the powers proposed to be vested in me as Metropoli¬ 
 tan ; and asserts that it was not true, as I stated in my second letter, 
 that u I have always wished for free and open discussion, whether on 
 
that or any other public measure 5 ” but that the universal dissatis¬ 
 faction caused by the authority conveyed in the Patent induced me to 
 alter my course, and concur in its alteration. I will give a plain state¬ 
 ment of What I did in the matter, and my reason's for so acting. 
 
 My first Patent, as you will remember, in consequence of certain 
 omissions in the Preamble, required amendments, and I received from 
 England, on the 21st January, 1861, a draft of a New Patent, with 
 instructions from the Duke oi Newcastle to this effect : “ His Grace has 
 given directions that this draft shall be placed in your hands for the 
 purpose of being submitted as well to your Lordship as to the other 
 Bishops concerned, and also, to any person in whose legal knowledge 
 and experience you may have confidence.” I immediately caused 
 printed copies to be forwarded to each of the Bishops ; and made 
 arrangements for visiting each Diocese, in order to consult with them 
 and any of their clergy and laity they might wish to be present. I 
 went to Toronto the first week in April, and proceeded from thence to 
 London ; and on the 17th of that month met a large party, including 
 Archdeacon Hellmuth, and the Bishop of Huron, at the Bishop of Que¬ 
 bec’s. The Archdeacon took an active part in the conversation respect¬ 
 ing the Patent. There were objections raised to some of the powers 
 given by the Patent ; aud I remember being asked if I would consent to 
 retain the draft, and submit it to the Provincial Synod, which was 
 expected to meet in the course of the summer. I demurred to such a 
 proposal, because I did not feel that it was according to my instructions 
 —and as there was a party opposed to any appointment of a Metropoli¬ 
 tan, and who questioned the authority of the Queen to make such an 
 appointment, I did not like at once to pledge myself to any such pro¬ 
 ceeding. Nothing, however, at all of an unpleasant character occurred 
 either at Quebec or elsewhere ; nor was I then conscious of anything 
 like violent opposition or general dissatisfaction. I never sought or 
 expected the office ; but having been selected for it, I felt deeply solici¬ 
 tous that neither the authority or dignity of the Queen, nor the rights 
 of the Church at large, should be compromised by any act of mine. 
 When I returned home, and again, with the best advice I could obtain > 
 considered the whole matter, I became convinced that whatever might 
 be the prerogative of the Queen to appoint a Metropolitan, (which has 
 since been acknowledged by the Synod, and by the opinion of the Law 
 
Officers of the Crown, which has been given more recently,) yet that it 
 "as open to grave doubts, whether the powers conferred, no matter 
 what they were, could be legally exercised, except by the authority of 
 
 >e Provincial Synod ; and I at once decided to retain the draft and 
 propose that a Committee of the Synod should be appointed to inquire 
 mto the bearings of the Synod Acts, and the Patents of the several 
 Bishops, <fcc. No one could be more interested than myself in wishing 
 to have my position clearly defined and legally established ; and while 
 bound to maintain the Royal prerogative as justly exercised in the 
 appointment of a Metropolitan, it must be the great object of all to 
 remedy any errors in the Patent making that appointment. 
 
 Sometime in the month of May, 1 received from the Honorable 
 . . Cameron, one of the printed copies of the Patent which I had 
 
 mrcnlated, with what he thought would be necessary to introduce as 
 amendments, and of which I approved. And it was from this very 
 .dentical copy that he moved the amendments, which were carried I 
 beUeve in the very words he had originally proposed to me. In June 
 I had a letter from the Bishop of Huron, informing me that he thought 
 there might be some difficulty about sending Delegates from their 
 Synod, because several of his clergy and laity doubted whether 
 the Metropolitan’s Patent did not conflict with the Synod Acts. To this 
 I replied at the time, informing him of the course I had determined to 
 pursue ; so that I thought there need be no difficulty on this subject as 
 the Provincial Synod might investigate this, and have it set right.’ I 
 mention these facts, not to claim any credit for what I did, but to show 
 that in the course I pursued, I was influenced by no fear or knowledge 
 of opposition or dissatisfaction, but from a deliberate consideration of 
 the matter, and a wish to act as became my duty to all parties. It 
 seems, however, that there was a growing agitation at Quebec. The 
 question was mooted at the Synod in July, and some violent, abusive, 
 anonymous letters appeared, I was informed, in one of the Quebec 
 papers in the month of August. And when the delegates assembled in 
 Montreal, at the meeting of the Synod on the 10th September, I was 
 told that great opposition was intended by those from Quebec, and 
 great success anticipated. What was to be the line of opposition, I 
 did not know, nor did it influence me in the least in the course I was 
 about to take, which I had decided upon many months previously. 
 

 12 
 
 M the right one. Tbc whole proceedings of the Synod went off so 
 happily and successfully, and I knew so little of the storm that had 
 been preparing, that I could not understand why the Archdeacon 
 should think I had taken umbrage at him. I learnt, however a few 
 days ago, that, though I was not cognisant of it, it had been intended that 
 be should have played a more prominent part, and that he wasentrusted 
 by those who acted with him with some resolutions which he was to 
 move : hut that when I came to that part of my address where I 
 recommended that “ a Committee of Synod should be appointed to con¬ 
 sider the bearing of the Synod Acts upon the Patents,” &c.,ke turned to 
 a Delegate sitting next him, and exclaimed, “ Ah! he has outgeneraled me 
 again.” I can only say, if I had done so, it was unwittingly, for I was 
 not the least aware of his intended movements ; and therefore, being 
 ignorant of the extent of his opposition, had no pretence for taking 
 umbrage at it. I had no wish that he should be kept in ignorance of 
 what I proposed doing. I had written to the Bishop of Huron inform¬ 
 ing him three months before, and spoke ot it to others, as no mystery. 
 And after the Synod had adopted the amendments proposed to be 
 inserted in the Patent, I forwarded them to England with a letter 
 earnestly recommending their being confirmed ; and specially with 
 respect to the Provincial Court of Appeal and Powers of the Metropoli- 
 tan. I wrote as follows 
 
 “ Amendment No. 6 provides that the Jurisdiction and Powers of the 
 •• Metropolitan shall be defined and regulated by Canons and Laws ol 
 “ the Synod. I believe this to be absolutely necessary, in our circum- 
 stances, to give them any validity ; and any Court of Appeal set 
 .. up by me, except under our Church Synod Act, would be without 
 *• force in the Province. And as we have no authority to introduce the 
 .. ecclesiastical law of England into Canada,-as I cannot make laws 
 .. for myself—it seems that the only way to obtain auy system is under 
 the Church Synod Act, which will give it legal authority and force 
 .. with all the Church. We have already decided, as part of our Con- 
 •< stitutiou, to have two Houses, the House of Bishops, and the House of 
 .. clerical and Lay Delegates, which latter may at auy time, on auy 
 question, call for a vote by orders. The Metropolitan is ex-ofhc.o 
 .< president ol the Synod, and Chairman of the Upper House. Piovision 
 
13 
 
 " 18 thU3ma<le f0r tbe d,,e oons <nt of the whole Church to any Canon 
 " 0r LaW ' 1 COnsider this t0 have been the exact, and tbe legitimate 
 “ position of al1 Metropolitans in the early Church, who presided over 
 “ the Church > and exercised their jurisdiction, according to the Canons 
 passed by their Provincial Synods; the only restriction being, that the 
 Provincial Synod could pass no Canon in opposition to the General 
 “ Canons of th e Church Universal, or the Imperial laws. 
 
 “ With these observations I now beg to return the draft of the proposed 
 new Patent, and also a Memorial to Her Majesty from the Provincial 
 “ Synod, praying that the additions recommended by the Synod may 
 “ be ordered to be inserted in the new Patent, which it is proposed to 
 “ issue.” 
 
 On my reviewing my conduct in this matter, I am not aware that I 
 could have adopted any course more honorable and fair to all concerned, 
 or more advisable for the good of the Church. It is very easy to 
 make accusations of tyranny and oppression, and to insinuate that 
 I am seeking to exercise an oppressive authority, and this may be re¬ 
 peated again and again by anonymous writers in newspapers. Such 
 attacks will never trouble me at all. I appeal to all my conduct whe¬ 
 ther as Bishop or Metropolitan, and ask for any proof of such a charge, 
 from any known and credible witness. IJren with respect to this very 
 controversy, I have merely appealed on a subject which deeply interests 
 the whole Church, to the judgment of the Church at large, where the 
 Archdeacon can meet me on the same ground. It has been stated that I 
 ought rather to have cited him before me as Metropolitan, if I had any 
 charge against him. In the first place, I have no court yet constituted : 
 nor do I see how it would have been possible to have reduced this matter 
 to such an issue, as would have brought it under the cognizance of such 
 a court. And had I done so, I think such a course would then have been 
 more loudly condemned as tyrannical, and that I was taking advantage 
 of my official position. I considered it a question that could only be 
 brought to the bar of public opinion of the Canadian Church, and there 
 I must leave it; and I think it will not have been mooted in vain. 
 
 One word more and I have done. My Patent has been returned with 
 the alterations made, exactly as we prayed ; and we are to meet shortly 
 to carry out the powers now entrusted to us. We have our Ecclesias- 
 
tical organization now complete, aud our means of church government 
 within ourselves ; and I hope we shall be, under the guidance of God’s 
 Spirit, enabled to carry through such measures as may be necessary, 
 with the general consent and approval ot ail. I should be very sorry 
 that any of our Dioceses had any just reason to apprehend that its own 
 legal rights would uot. be respected ; but it must be evident that it would 
 be placing itself altogether in a false position, to seek a separation 
 from tne rest of the Canadian Church. 
 
 I remain, 
 
 Ever your faithful Brother in Christ, 
 
 F. MONTREAL. 
 
%nw