I am often charged with hostility to the Church of England. Did I know nothing of the Church of England except what has been exhibited in this province, ... how could I have any partiality for that Church? There is a large and growing branch of the Established Church in England that I venerate, admire, and love; but there is a semi-popish branch of it for which I have no such respect, and that is the branch, with a few individual exceptions, which exists in this province....

I would not derogate an iota from the respect claimed by the Church of England on account of the prerogatives to which she is legally entitled [in England]. As the form of religion professed by the Sovereign and rulers of the Empire—as the Established Church of the British realm—as the Church which has nursed some of the greatest statesmen, philosophers, and divines that have enlightened, adorned, and blest the world, she cannot fail to command the respect of all enlightened men, whatever may be thought of the conduct and pretensions of the Canadian branch of that Church—pretensions which have been virtually repudiated in royal charters, and contradicted by the entire civil and ecclesiastical history of the old British colonies.

I, as well as my friends, have been the subjects of repeated strictures in your pages; during the last two years I have replied not a word, nor published a line in reference to the Church Of England.

I have stated on former occasions—and perhaps my two years' silence may now give some weight to the statement—that my objections had no reference to the existence, or prosperity, of the Church of England as a Church, but simply and solely to its exclusive establishment and endowment in Upper Canada, especially, and indeed entirely, in reference to the clergy reserves. During the discussions which took place, and which were continued for years, I wrote many strong things; but nothing on the Episcopal form of Government, or the formularies, or doctrines of the Church of England. The doctrines of the Church of England, as contained in the Articles and Homilies, I always professed to believe. On the subject of Church Government, I often expressed my views in the language of Dr. Paley, and in accordance with the sentiments of many distinguished dignitaries and divines of the Church of England, that no particular form of Church Government has been enjoined by the Apostles. I have objected to the Episcopal, or any other one form of Church Government, being put forth as essential to the existence of the Church of Christ, and as the only Scriptural form; but no further. I do not think the form of Church, any more than the form of civil government, is settled in the Scriptures; I believe that both are left, as Bishop Stillingfleet has shown at large, to times, places, and circumstances, to be determined upon the ground of expediency and utility—a ground on which Dr. Paley has supported the different orders of the Church of England with his accustomed clearness, ability and elegance. I know, on the contrary, that much may be said upon the same ground in favour of itinerancy, of Presbyterianism, and of independency.

On the subject of forms of prayer, I have never written; though I have for many years used forms of prayer in private as helps to, not substitutes for, devotion. I believe the foundation of the Church of Christ is not laid in forms, but in doctrines....

I believe it would be a moral calamity for either the Church of England, or Church of Scotland, or the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Congregational, or the Baptist Churches to be annihilated in this province. I believe there are fields of labour which may be occupied by any one of those Churches with more efficiency and success than by any of the others. They need not, and I think, ought not, to be aggressors upon each other....

As there were seven Apostolic Churches in Asia, we believe ourselves one of the Apostolic Churches in Canada.... Those persons, who believe that the instruction, and religious advantages and privileges afforded by our Church will more effectually aid them in working out their salvation than those which they can command in any other part of the general fold of Christ, are affectionately received under our watch-care; but not on account of our approximation to, or our dissent from, the Church of England, or any other Church.

With the settlement of the clergy reserve question ended my controversy with the Church of England, as I have again and again intimated that it would. Churches, as well as individuals, may learn wisdom from experience. I therefore, submit, whether the controversies and their characteristic feelings between the Church of England and the Wesleyan Methodist Church in this province ought not to cease, with the removal of the causes which produced them?... Whether both Churches are not likely to accomplish more religious and moral good by directing their energies against prevalent vice and ignorance than by mutual warfare?

I intend no offence when I express my conviction that the Church of England in this province has vastly greater resources for doing good than for warring with other Protestant Churches. I know her weak points, as well as her strong towers. I am not a stranger to the appropriate weapons for assailing the one, and for neutralizing the strength of the other. And you have not to learn that it is easier to deface than to beautify—to pull down a fair fabric than to rear a common structure; and that a man may injure others without benefitting himself. On the other hand I am equally sensible that the Wesleyan Methodist Church has nothing to gain by controversy; but I am quite sure, from past experience, as well as from present aspects, that she has not so much to fear, to risk, or to lose, as the Church of England. If controversy be perpetuated between your Church and our own, I wash my hands from all responsibility of it—even should the duty of self-defence compel me to draw the sword which I had, in inclination and intention, sheathed for ever. History, and our own experience to some extent, abounds with monitory lessons, that personal disputes may convulse churches, that ecclesiastical controversies may convulse provinces, and lead to the subversion of governments....

I have long been impressed with the conviction that Canada could not prosper under the element of agitation. I supported the Union of the Canadas with a view to their civil tranquility. I believe my expectations will be realized. In our new state of things I desire not to be considered as standing in an attitude of hostility to the Church of England, any more than to any other Church. I have wished and resolved to leave civil and ecclesiastical party politics with the former bad state of things. Travelling, observation and experience, have been a useful school to me, and time will do justice to the merits or demerits of my motives and conduct.

Do not think that I wish to meet you coldly. I would gladly fling away the weapons of strife. The warfare in which I am engaged, and which I dare not decline, is literally embittering my existence, and pressing upon me very severely. I am not aware that I have in any way personally attacked you, or ever by name, since the commencement of my editorial career. I should hail a day of concord with overflowing joy. I should rejoice to see your powerful, acute, and vigorous mind exerting itself in a manner that we should all consider serviceable to the cause of loyalty and the Protestant religion.

From a glance at your letters, I fondly hope that some gleam of light is breaking in upon us all. My firm conviction is that the doctrine of the apostolical succession will be the bond of union and the cementer of differences, now apparently impossible. You must have studied the question—and how can your vivid and clear mind elude its force? Must there not be some one apostolical mode of conferring the ministerial functions, or must it be open to all, and Quakerism be right? I do not think I have been the assailant. The Guardian is outrageously personal and unscrupulous in its misstatements.... I am far from thinking that I am meek and gentle enough; but I have carefully excluded personalities,—though I readily concede that my course of argument, which pervades all I write or select, has been to cut away the ground from under the feet of every denomination in the province, outside of the Church.

The papists, I firmly believe, are meditating some grand movement all over the world; and it would be glorious indeed if Protestants could find a common centre of union. But what can I, in my humble way, do? I dare not drop the necessity of the apostolical succession,—though I might dwell less upon it, and avoid, as much as possible, as I always have done, to mix it up with offence to other denominations. Yet, as I before intimated, the assertion and maintenance of it, in the simplest and least controversial manner, must ever provoke hostility. It is an endless subject to get upon....

I shall be very happy to call on you at an early opportunity, and obtain, or rather revive, the pleasure of your personal acquaintance. It would be the happiest Christmas I ever spent, if it witness the extinction of long theological enmities, and the dawn of an era of Christian concord and love.

I trust you will think that in the remarks which I have made on your letter in The Church, I have met your overtures in a pacific and cordial spirit. I am sure that my remarks will be much more acceptable to churchmen, so far as such remarks are friendly to you, than they will be to others not belonging to our pale. I have not consulted a soul about what I have written, nor have I shown your pleasing reply to my first note to any one save good and safe Mr. Henry Rowsell; though I should like to show it to Rev. H. J. Grasett, and Bishop Strachan. You need never be afraid of what you say to me in confidence.... It is certainly much more consistent in you (provided only you get rid of Mr. Wesley's authority, and then, by the way, you destroy your genealogy and succession) to call yourselves a Church, than to be of the Church and not in it.... You are said to possess some fine old Divinity works. You cannot have read them without some approximation to our Church.

You are not in the position of the continental Churches. No constraint is upon you. You can get Episcopacy, if you desire it. Neither does the Church of England stand relatively towards you, as the Gallican Church towards the Huguenots. You admit the purity of our doctrine, and do not consider our discipline unscriptural. If you were to read Bishop Stillingfleet on Separation, I think you would open up new trains of thought. I just became so staunch an Episcopalian, from viewing the matter extrinsically of Scripture and history, and was led to conclude, from the nature of things, that there can be but one valid ministry.

You are certainly a Prospero. You have waved your magic wand over the Guardian. I saw it in an instant, and saw that you had done it. I purposely, in my editorial, abstained from all allusions to our confidential intercourse, or I would have thanked you for this exercise of your healing influence.

It is by no means an unpleasing marvel that you and I, on the last day of 1841, should be conversing so pleasantly and amicably. I trust that peace and amity will flourish still more!

Do me the favour to accept a slight New Year's gift at my hands.

... The great difference between us seems to be that I value what I hold to be the cardinal doctrines, and morals and interests of Christianity, above either Churchism or Methodism. So that those interests are advanced, either through the Church of England, or Church of Scotland, or any other Protestant Church, I therein do rejoice and will rejoice. You make the Church of England first of all—essential to all—all in all; and that all who are not in the Church of England are enemies to the Church of Christ, "strangers to the covenants of promise, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel."... It is true you have exempted me by way of compliment; but no intelligent man would wish to hold his religious intercourse and standing on the tenor of a compliment; and that too at the expense of his ecclesiastical connexion and general principles. If I cannot but be viewed as an enemy of the Church of England as a Methodist, it is a poor compliment to tell me that I am friendly to it as a man. I do not understand the hair-splitting casuistry which separates the man from the Christian....

I believe in your perfect sincerity and personal disinterestedness and kindness, but I must say that you do not appear from the last Church to suppose it possible for a man to think in a different channel from yourself without endangering his title to the skies, or to common sense, and without absolutely forfeiting his claim to orthodox Christianity. I refer not all to your maintenance of apostolic succession, but to your unqualified reprobation of the motives, feelings, and character of all who are not of your own fold. How different are the sentiments and spirit of Bishop Onderdonk's essay in support of the "Divine Right of Episcopacy" from those of your articles in the last Church? Now, though we may be without the attributes of what you believe to be a scripturally constituted Church, we are not without the attributes and feelings of men.... The apparatus of the Church of England is surprisingly powerful when spiritually, rightly, and comprehensively applied; but to build your structure like an inverted pyramid, and to rouse every one not of you into warfare against you, does not appear to me to be sound in theory, or wise in practice.

I have read your letter over so as to prepare my remarks. In doing this I anticipate no trouble. On the contrary, I hope to strengthen my position and give greater weight to my axioms respecting the duties of Churchmen in withholding aid from all religious societies unconnected with the Church. I find, however, that your tone of remark is excessively warm and indignant; and, deeming from the tenor of your conversation on Thursday last, that you have doubts on your mind respecting church government, and feeling convinced that if ever you are led to subscribe to the indispensable obligations of episcopacy, ... you will admit the validity of my reasons for acting and writing as I do—under all these circumstances I feel bound to ask you to meditate whether you will not withdraw your letter. I give you my sacred honour that I do not dread its effects. But I feel this, that should you ever experience and avow a change of opinion in reference to the matters that are now engaging your attention, it will be brought up against you by your enemies, and may altogether prove a constant embarrassment. Should you withdraw it, I will only mention the matter to Mr. Grasett, who has already seen it. Should you determine on its insertion, it shall appear next Saturday.

Before I was twenty years of age I had read Paley's Political Philosophy, including his chapters on the British Constitution and a Church Establishment; Locke on Government, and especially Blackstone's Commentaries, particularly those parts on the Rights of the Crown and the Rights of the Subject. From Paley I learned that a Church Establishment is no part of Christianity, but a means of supporting it, and a means which should be used only when the majority of the people are of the religion thus supported. From Blackstone I learned that the Church of England is the Established Church of England and Ireland, but not of any colony, except under one or more of three conditions, none of which existed in Upper Canada. Upon the grounds, therefore, furnished by Blackstone and Paley, I opposed the erection of a Church Establishment in Upper Canada, without touching the question of a Church Establishment in England.