Depriving the National Church of nearly three-fourths of her acknowledged property, and then, in mockery and derision, offering her back a portion of her own, so trifling as to be totally insufficient to maintain her present Establishment; it tramples on the faith of the British Government by destroying the birthright of all the members of the Established Church who are now in the province, or who may hereafter come into it; it promotes error, schism and dissent, and seeks to degrade the clergy of the Church of England to an equality with unauthorized teachers, etc.
The Bishop then uttered, that which events proved to be a memorable and true prophecy, that the Church—
Need be under no great apprehension in regard to any measure likely to pass the Provincial Legislature on the subject of the reserves:—reckless injustice in their disposition will not be permitted; although the Church may appear friendless and in peril, from the defection and treachery of some professing members.... If any of her children incline to despondency, let them turn their eyes to England, where we have protectors both numerous and powerful, watching our struggles, and holding out the hand of fellowship and assistance. [See next page.]
Dr. Ryerson at once joined issue with the Bishop, and—
Confuted the pretensions of "John Toronto" by the doctrines and statements of "John Strachan," who, when in England in 1827, published a pamphlet in which he stated that "the provincial legislatures have nothing to do, either directly or indirectly, with the Romish Church; but the same legislatures may vary, repeal, or modify the 31st Geo. III., cap. 31, as far as it respects the Church of England."
Dr. Ryerson pertinently asked the Bishop—
How could a "birthright" be "varied, repealed, or modified," as he had admitted that the constitutional act could do, "as far as it respects the Church of England?" Can (he asks) the Legislature "vary or repeal" the deeds by which individuals hold their lands?—Which of the "dissenting" denominations recognized by law is not as orthodox in doctrine as the Church of England, and far more orthodox than those who endorse the Oxford "Tracts for the Times?"
The bill was finally passed in the House of Assembly, by a vote of 31 to 7, and in the Legislative Council, by a vote of 13 to 4, notwithstanding a remarkably outspoken and defiant speech from the Bishop. In it he used the following language:
Feeling that the bill provides for the encouragement and propagation of error; inflicts the grossest injustice by robbing and plundering the National Church; that it attempts to destroy all distinction between truth and falsehood; that its anti-Christian tendencies lead directly to infidelity, and will reflect disgrace on the Legislature, I give it my unqualified opposition.