FOOTNOTES:

Your letter affords me great satisfaction, accompanied with sorrow. I am afflicted to think of the state the Province is in. Never did high-churchism take such rapid strides towards undisputed domination in this country as it is now taking. Never were the prospects of the friends of civil and religious liberty so gloomy and desperate as they are now. You say that you have not time to write on these subjects. I will say, if you had, it would not now, I fear, accomplish much. Indeed, it would, require the undeviatingcourse and the whole weight of theGuardianto accomplish anything at this time, so completely is all moral power in the country enervated and liberty prostrated.It is a great blessing that Mackenzie and radicalism are down, but we are in imminent danger of being brought under the domination of a military and high-church oligarchy, which would be equally bad, if not infinitely worse. Under the blessing of Providence there is one remedy, and only one; and that is, for you to take the editorship of theGuardianagain. Several preachers have spoken to me on this subject lately. One of them said to me (and he could think of nothing else) that that alone would save us and the country from utter ruin, and urged the necessity of the Conference electing you, whether you would consent to serve or not. The truth is, it is absolutely necessary for the sake of the Church and the country that you reside in Toronto, and have direction of affairs here. I wish all of our proceedings to be calm and moderate, but that we be firm, and that the great principles of religious freedom and equality should be uncompromisingly maintained.

It is a great blessing that Mackenzie and radicalism are down, but we are in imminent danger of being brought under the domination of a military and high-church oligarchy, which would be equally bad, if not infinitely worse. Under the blessing of Providence there is one remedy, and only one; and that is, for you to take the editorship of theGuardianagain. Several preachers have spoken to me on this subject lately. One of them said to me (and he could think of nothing else) that that alone would save us and the country from utter ruin, and urged the necessity of the Conference electing you, whether you would consent to serve or not. The truth is, it is absolutely necessary for the sake of the Church and the country that you reside in Toronto, and have direction of affairs here. I wish all of our proceedings to be calm and moderate, but that we be firm, and that the great principles of religious freedom and equality should be uncompromisingly maintained.

In a subsequent letter to Dr. Ryerson his brother John said:

In fact there is no way of escape out of our troubles but for you to take theGuardian. The feeling of dissatisfaction at the present state of things is becoming exceedingly strong among the preachers and people. I participate in their feelings.

Dr. Ryerson yielded to these appeals, and did write for theGuardian. In a letter, dated Kingston, April 4th, he said:—

I have recently written at considerable length to Lord Glenelg respecting the Academy and other local matters. What you say in regard to myself, and my appointment next year, I feel to be a delicate and difficult matter for me to speak on. In regard to myself I have many conflicting thoughts. My feelings, and private interests, are in favour of my remaining where I am, if I remain in the Province. I have been very much cast down, and my mind has been much agitated on the subject. For the present I am somewhat relieved by the conclusion to which I have come, in accordance with Dr. Clarke's "Advice to a Young Preacher," not to choose my own appointment, but after making known any circumstances, which I may feel it necessary to explain, to leave myself in the hands of God and my brethren, as I have done during the former years of my ministry. If the Lord, therefore, will give me grace, I am resolved to stand on the old Methodistic ground in the matter of appointment to theGuardian.I thank you for Chief Justice Robinson's address at the trial of the prisoners. It is good. My own views are in favour of lenity to these prisoners. Punishments for political offences can never be beneficial, when they are inflicted in opposition to public sentiment and sympathy. In such a case it will defeat the object it is intended to accomplish. It matters not whether that sentiment and sympathy are right or wrong in the abstract; the effect of doing violence to it will be the same. But I would not pander to that feeling, how carefully soever one may be disposed to observe its operations. The fact, however, is, that Sir Francis Head deserves impeachment, just as much as Samuel Lount deserves execution. Morally speaking, I cannot but regard Sir Francis as the more guilty culprit of the two.I admire, as a whole, Sir George Arthur's reply to the address of the "Constitutional Reformers." There is good in it. They will see the folly of continuing the former party designations, and pretended grounds of complaint. I think, however, that their address will do good, from the large number of names attached to it. I was surprised, and it has created quite a sensation here, that there are so many as 772 in Toronto, who still have the moral courage to designate themselves "Constitutional Reformers." Itwill teach the other party that they are not so strong, and so absolute in the voice of the country, as they thought themselves to be.I am satisfied that there never was such a time as from the termination of the trial of the prisoners to the next session of Parliament, for us to stamp upon the public mind at large, our own constitutional, and Scriptural, political, and religious doctrines; and to give the tone to the future Government and Legislation of the Province, and to enlarge vastly a sphere of usefulness. I shall write some papers for theGuardianwith this view.

I thank you for Chief Justice Robinson's address at the trial of the prisoners. It is good. My own views are in favour of lenity to these prisoners. Punishments for political offences can never be beneficial, when they are inflicted in opposition to public sentiment and sympathy. In such a case it will defeat the object it is intended to accomplish. It matters not whether that sentiment and sympathy are right or wrong in the abstract; the effect of doing violence to it will be the same. But I would not pander to that feeling, how carefully soever one may be disposed to observe its operations. The fact, however, is, that Sir Francis Head deserves impeachment, just as much as Samuel Lount deserves execution. Morally speaking, I cannot but regard Sir Francis as the more guilty culprit of the two.

I admire, as a whole, Sir George Arthur's reply to the address of the "Constitutional Reformers." There is good in it. They will see the folly of continuing the former party designations, and pretended grounds of complaint. I think, however, that their address will do good, from the large number of names attached to it. I was surprised, and it has created quite a sensation here, that there are so many as 772 in Toronto, who still have the moral courage to designate themselves "Constitutional Reformers." Itwill teach the other party that they are not so strong, and so absolute in the voice of the country, as they thought themselves to be.

I am satisfied that there never was such a time as from the termination of the trial of the prisoners to the next session of Parliament, for us to stamp upon the public mind at large, our own constitutional, and Scriptural, political, and religious doctrines; and to give the tone to the future Government and Legislation of the Province, and to enlarge vastly a sphere of usefulness. I shall write some papers for theGuardianwith this view.

In a letter from Brockville, Rev. William Scott said:—

My humble opinion is, that in order to our safety as a Church—our preservation from high church influence—you must be at Toronto. I assure you that is the opinion of our influential men in this quarter, who understand the state of the province, and the position of Methodism. Permit me to add that the one hour's conversation which I had with you amply repaid me for all the furious battles which I have fought on this circuit in your defence.

Rev. Joseph Stinson, in a letter to Rev. John Ryerson, said:

I am quite of your opinion that your brother Egerton ought to take theGuardiannext year. There is a crisis approaching in our affairs which will require a vigorous hand to wield the defensive weapon of our Conference. There can be no two opinions as to whom we should give that weapon. We now stand on fair ground to maintain our own against the encroachments of the oligarchy, and we must do it, or sink into a comparatively uninfluential body—this must not be.

As urged by these letters from his brethren, Dr. Ryerson, early in May, 1838, prepared several articles for theGuardian. His brother John, who was a member of the Book Committee, thus speaks of the series of articles sent to that paper:—

I cannot express to you how much I am gratified and pleased with your article on "Christian Loyalty." It will, no doubt, do immense good. We have had a regular campaign in our Book Committee, in reading and discussing your articles. The one on "Christian Loyalty" occupied nearly the whole time. Your article on "The Church" is one of the most admirable papers I ever read. Not a word of that is to be altered. Your communication on "Indian Affairs," I cannot speak so highly of. I hope you will pardon me for leaving out some of the severe remarks on Sir Francis. I am afraid they will do harm with the present Government.

At the Conference of 1838, Dr. Ryerson was re-elected Editor of theChristian Guardian. In his first editorial, dated 11th July 1838, he said:—

Notwithstanding the almost incredible calumny which has in past years been heaped upon me by antipodes-party-presses, I still adhere to the principles and views upon which I set out in 1826. I believe the endowment of the priesthood of any Church in the Province to be an evil to that Church.... I believe that the appropriation of the proceeds of the clergy reserves to general educational purposes, will be the most satisfactory and advantageous disposal of them that can be made. In nothing is this Province so defective as in the requisite available provisions for, and an efficient system of,general education. Let the distinctive character of that system be the union of public and private effort.... To Government influence will be spontaneously added the various and combined religious influence of the country in the noble, statesmanlike, and divine work of raising up an elevated, intelligent, and moral population.[70]

In combatting the idea that his editorial opinions in theGuardianwere necessarily "the opinions of the Methodists" as a body, and that they were responsible for them, Dr. Ryerson, in theGuardianof August 15th, thus defines the rights of an editor:—To be the mere scribe of the opinions of others, and not to write what we think ourselves, is a greater degradation of intellectual and moral character than slavery itself.... In doctrines and opinions we write what we believe to be the truth, leaving to others the exercise of a judgment equally unbiassed and free.

In the exuberance of loyal zeal, and yet in a kindly spirit which was characteristic of him, Rev. W. M. Harvard, President of the Canada Conference, issued a pastoral on the 17th April, 1838, to the ministers of the Church, enjoining them not to recognize as members of the Society those whose loyalty could be impeached. The directions which he gave were:—

Should there be a single individual for whose Christian loyalty the preacher cannot conscientiously answer for to his brethren, in the first place such individual should not be included in the return of membership, and in the second place such individual should be dealt with kindly and compassionately, but firmly, according to the provisions of the Discipline.No man who is not disposed to be a good subject can be admissible to the Sacraments of the Church....Should any person apply hereafter for admission into our Church, who may be ill-affected to the Crown ... tell him kindly, but firmly, ... that he has applied at the wrong door.

No man who is not disposed to be a good subject can be admissible to the Sacraments of the Church....

Should any person apply hereafter for admission into our Church, who may be ill-affected to the Crown ... tell him kindly, but firmly, ... that he has applied at the wrong door.

As soon as this extraordinary pastoral had appeared, Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter of some length to theGuardian, objecting in very temperate, but yet in very strong language to the doctrine laid down in it by the President of the Conference. Before publication, however, he sent it to Mr. Harvard for his information and perusal. He showed from the writings of John Wesley, Richard Watson, and others, and from examples which he cited (John Nelson, "the apostolic fellow-labourer of John Wesley," etc.) that such a doctrine savoured of despotism, and was harsh and inquisitorial in its effects. He concluded thus:—

None of the various political opinions which men hold, and their respectful and constitutional expression of them, is any just cause of excluding from theLord's Table any human being, provided his religious character is unexceptional. The only condition of membership in our Church is "a desire to flee from the wrath to come,"[71]and none of the opinions mentioned is inconsistent with the fruits by which that desire is evidenced. The Discipline of the Church, or the Scripture itself, does not authorize me to become the judge of another man's political opinions—the Church is not a political association—any man has as good a right, religiously and politically, to his opinions of public matters as I have to mine—and laymen frequently know much more, and are better judges, than ministers in civil and secular affairs.

It can be well understood what would be the effect of the Pastoral, and not less so of Dr. Ryerson's clear and dispassionate disclaimer of the doctrines which it officially laid down.

It required courage and firmness, in the loyal outburst and reaction of those days, to question the propriety or expediency of any reasonable means by which the unimpeachable loyalty of members of the Church could be ascertained. What added to the embarrassment of Dr. Ryerson in discussing such a question was the fact that the Methodists were being constantly taunted with being disloyal. Knowing this, and sensitive as to the disgrace of such a stigma being cast upon the Church, the President felt constrained to take some decisive, and yet, as he thought, kindly and satisfactory means of ridding the Church of members who were the cause, in his estimation, of such a disgrace and reproach to that Church.

Among many other strong letters of commendations of his reply to Mr. Harvard, which Dr. Ryerson received, were two,—one from a representative minister of the Canadian section of the Church, and the other from an equally excellent representative of the British missionaries. Thus:

Rev. Anson Green, writing from Picton, said:—

I was sorry, though not surprised, to hear that you were very much perplexed. I could easily understand your feelings, and quite sympathize with you. Your recent efforts for the peace and prosperity of the Church have very much endeared you to my heart. I am fully prepared to believe the assertion which you made while in England, "that you love Jerusalem above your chief joy." This you have fully proved by your untiring efforts on behalf of the Academy, the Chapels, and on the Church question; but in nothing more, allow me to say, than in the firm, manly, and Christian spirit, in which you have come out, publicly, in defence of the membership of the Church, and of sound principles. I had resolved when Rev. Mr. Harvard wrote to me to carry out the principles of his instructions and Pastoral in this district, to write him a letter respectfully and yet firmly declining to do so. But when I saw the storm gathering in every quarter, I could only exclaim in the despondency of my soul:—When will our brethren cease to destroy us, and when will the Church again have rest from internal commotion and strife! And just at this crisis (a memorable crisis to thousands of our Canadian friends) your excellent rejoinder to Mr. Harvard's Pastoral came out in theGuardian. It was a balm to the afflicted heart. It was a precious cordial poured forth. Your letter was sent from house to house, from cottageto cottage, and met with unequivical applause from all. The lowering sky began to clear up, and we are encouraged once more to hope for clear sunshine. You have had the courage to speak the truth in opposition to men in high authority. Your letter was in every respect just what it should have been, and thousands do most sincerely thank you for it.

Rev. Joseph Stinson, writing from Simcoe, said:—

As far as I can ascertain, your appointment as Editor of theGuardiannext year will give general satisfaction. The President's Pastoral and your reply are producing quite a sensation. Most people give Mr. Harvard credit for purity of intention, but regret that the subject of politics has been adverted to by him in such a form. Your remarks on the Pastoral have hushed the fears of many who were greatly disturbed; but some think that your statement of abstract right is carried too far, and may at a future day be appealed to in support of measures which you would utterly condemn.Some of your old tory friends think that there is design in all you write on these questions, and do not hesitate to designate you by the amiable title of a "jesuit," etc. You can bear all this and much more in carrying out your design, to show them that their tactics are understood, and their proceedings are closely watched, so as to prevent them from obtaining those objects which would be alike unjust to us as a Church, and ungenerous to themselves. It is well that in all of the "burnings which your fingers" have had, you have not yet lost your nails; for I expect that you will need them before long. The high church party have the will, if they can muster the courage, to make a renewed and desperate attack upon you. Fear not; while you advocate the truth, you can defy their rage.The public mind seems to me to be in a state of painful suspense. The people hate and dread rebellion. They are not satisfied with the present leading political party. They hope to see a new man rise up with sufficient talent and influence to collect around him a respectable party to act as a balance between oppression and destruction. Some talk of a new election; some talk of leaving the country; all seem to think that something must be done; none know what to do. How ought we in this awful crisis (for an awful crisis it is), to pray for the Divine interposition in behalf of our distracted province.... I saw your venerable father last night. He very much wishes you to write to him.

Some of your old tory friends think that there is design in all you write on these questions, and do not hesitate to designate you by the amiable title of a "jesuit," etc. You can bear all this and much more in carrying out your design, to show them that their tactics are understood, and their proceedings are closely watched, so as to prevent them from obtaining those objects which would be alike unjust to us as a Church, and ungenerous to themselves. It is well that in all of the "burnings which your fingers" have had, you have not yet lost your nails; for I expect that you will need them before long. The high church party have the will, if they can muster the courage, to make a renewed and desperate attack upon you. Fear not; while you advocate the truth, you can defy their rage.

The public mind seems to me to be in a state of painful suspense. The people hate and dread rebellion. They are not satisfied with the present leading political party. They hope to see a new man rise up with sufficient talent and influence to collect around him a respectable party to act as a balance between oppression and destruction. Some talk of a new election; some talk of leaving the country; all seem to think that something must be done; none know what to do. How ought we in this awful crisis (for an awful crisis it is), to pray for the Divine interposition in behalf of our distracted province.... I saw your venerable father last night. He very much wishes you to write to him.

On the 7th of November, 1838, the first number of the 10th volume of theGuardianwas issued. In it there is an elaborate article signed by Dr. Ryerson (although he was then Editor), on the state of public affairs in Upper Canada. In his introductory remarks he said:—

From the part I have usually taken in questions which affect the foundations of our Government, and our relations with the Mother Country,—and from the position I at present occupy in respect to public affairs, and in relation to the Province generally, it will be expected that I should take a more than passing notice of the eventful crisis at which we have arrived. In conclusion, he says: Having faithfully laid before the Government and the country the present posture of affairs, and the causes of our present dissatisfaction and dangers, I advert to the remedies: (1. Military defence.) 2. Let the Government be administered as much in accordance with the general wishes of this country, as it is in England. 3. Abolish high-church domination, and provide perfect religious and political equality. 4. Let them be at equal fidelity to obey the authorities when called upon.... He who does most to bring about this happy state of things in the Province will be the greatest benefactor of his country.

FOOTNOTES:[70]Even at this early date, Dr. Ryerson indicated the comprehensive character of the system of education which he was afterwards destined to found in Upper Canada.[71]These words as to membership are identical with those which Dr. Ryerson uttered fifteen years afterwards in his discussion on the Class-meeting question.

[70]Even at this early date, Dr. Ryerson indicated the comprehensive character of the system of education which he was afterwards destined to found in Upper Canada.

[71]These words as to membership are identical with those which Dr. Ryerson uttered fifteen years afterwards in his discussion on the Class-meeting question.

1838-1840.

Enemies and Friends Within and Without.

Any controversialist, whose honest belief in his own doctrines makes him terribly in earnest, may count on a life embittered by the anger of those on whom he has forced the disagreeable task of reconsidering their own assumptions.—Canon Farrar.

All through his public career, Dr. Ryerson had many bitter enemies and many warm and devoted friends. This was not to be wondered at. No man with such strongly marked individuality of will and purpose, and with such an instinctive dislike to injustice and oppression, could fail to come in contact with those whose views and proceedings were opposed to his sense of right. The enmity which he excited in discussing public questions was rarely disarmed (except in the case of men of generous impulses or noble natures) by the fact that he and those who acted with him were battling for great principles—those of truth, and justice, and freedom.

When these principles could not be successfully assailed, the usual plan was to attack the character, and wound the tender sensibilities of their chief defender. This was a mistake; but it was the common error with most of Dr. Ryerson's assailants. And yet those who did so in his presence, and in the arena of debate, rarely repeated the mistake. With all his kindness of heart and warmth of friendship, there was, when aroused, much of the lion in his nature. Few who assailed him in Conference, or made a personal attack upon him in other places of public discussion, could stand before the glitter of his eye when that lion-nature was aroused; and fewer still would care to endure the effect of its fire a second time.

Most of the personal attacks made upon Dr. Ryerson were in writing, and often anonymously. He had, therefore, to defend himself chiefly with his pen. This he rarely failed to do, and with good effect.[72]On such occasions he used strong and vigorouslanguage, of which he was an acknowledged master. Very many of these attacks were ephemeral, and not worthy of note. Others were more serious and affected character, and these were more or less bitter and violent. They, of course, called forth a good deal of feeling at the time, but are only referred to now as part of the story of a life, then singularly active and stormy.

The Editor of the TorontoPatriothaving published extracts from a pamphlet issued in the Newcastle District (County of Northumberland), in 1832, in which attacks were made upon Dr. Ryerson's character, he replied to them in the columns of that paper. In 1828, his circuit was in the Newcastle district, and the person who made these attacks resided in Haldimand, about eight miles east of Cobourg. Among other things, this man said that Dr. Ryerson "read seditious newspapers at his house, on the Sabbath day!" In reply, Dr. Ryerson said:—

As my plan of labour prevented me from reaching this person's locality until Sunday evening, and then preach in the Church there, it would be impossible for me to do as he has alleged. Were I to have done so, I would be unworthy of the society of Christian men. But the author of this libel, which was published by him four years after the alleged circumstance took place, was defeated as a candidate for the House of Assembly, on account of a personal attack which he made upon me at the hustings!Hinc illæ lucrymæ.This person also said that I "hoped yet to see the walls of the Church of England levelled to the dust." In my reply to this I said:—I solemnly declare that I never uttered such a sentiment, nor have I cherished any hostility to the Church of England. Some of my friends desired me to take orders in the Church of England [see page 41]; and a gentleman (now an Episcopal clergyman) was authorized by the late Bishop of Quebec to request me to make an appointment to see him on his then contemplated tour through the Niagara District, where I was travelling. After mature, and I trust, prayerful deliberation, I replied by letter declining the proposals made, at the same time appreciating the kindness and partiality of my friends. A short time afterwards, I met the friend who had been the medium of this communication from the late Dr. Stewart. He was deeply affected at my decision. When I assigned my religious obligation to the Methodists as a reason for declining the offer, he replied that all of his own religious feelings had also been derived from them, but he thought the Church required our labours.

Some person having written, professedly from Kingston, a diatribe against Dr. Ryerson, in the London (Eng.)Standard, Rev. Robert Alder replied to it, and apprised him of the fact:—

An attack having been made on you in a letter from Kingston, and inserted in theStandard, I have been stirred up to write in your defence. I expect also to have a battle to fight with Sir Francis Head, for "I guess" he knows something of your Kingston friend.

From Mr. Alder's reply, I make the following extracts:—

There is no man, either in the Canadas or at home, better acquainted with the former and present state of these fine provinces than Mr. Ryerson, as his letters in theTimes, signed "A Canadian," testify. Even his Kingstonslanderer admits that the facts stated in these letters were, in the main exceedingly correct, indisputably true, and for the publication of which he is entitled to the grateful thanks of every loyal subject throughout British North America. But the malice of an adversary is too often swifter than the gratitude of those who have derived benefit from our services. This is proved in the case of Mr. Ryerson; for while every radical and republican journal in the province has teemed with communications vilifying his character and motives in the strongest terms, a stinted meed of praise has been doled out to him....No wonder that persons in this country deeply interested in Canada frequently consulted him; no wonder that the British North American Land Company re-published his letters from theTimesat their own expense. And it is to the honour of the noble lord at the head of the Colonial Department, that he did obtain from so intelligent and influential an individual as Mr. Ryerson, information respecting the state of parties in a country so well-known to him. If his information and advice, and that of another "Methodist Parson" in Canada, had been received and acted upon elsewhere, there is reason to believe that Mackenzie and his traitorous associates would not have been permitted to unfurl the standard of rebellion in the midst of a peaceful and loyal people. (See pages 176 and 183.)

No wonder that persons in this country deeply interested in Canada frequently consulted him; no wonder that the British North American Land Company re-published his letters from theTimesat their own expense. And it is to the honour of the noble lord at the head of the Colonial Department, that he did obtain from so intelligent and influential an individual as Mr. Ryerson, information respecting the state of parties in a country so well-known to him. If his information and advice, and that of another "Methodist Parson" in Canada, had been received and acted upon elsewhere, there is reason to believe that Mackenzie and his traitorous associates would not have been permitted to unfurl the standard of rebellion in the midst of a peaceful and loyal people. (See pages 176 and 183.)

The inspired truth that "A man's foes shall be they of his own household" received many a painful illustration in Dr. Ryerson's history. In 1838, it was reduced to a system. The assailant was often "A Wesleyan," or, "A True Wesleyan," and under the friendlyægisof four or five papers, which were usually hostile to Methodism itself, the attack would be made. From numerous examples noted in theGuardian, I select a specimen:—

The rebelliousGuardianis shut against us; its cry is war, havoc, and bloodshed, with Wesley on the lips, but implacable hatred to him in the heart of its editor and his friends.... One of two things remain for us, either to expel the Ryerson family and their friends from our Society, who are the root of all our misfortunes, or ... for all true Wesleyans to withdraw from them and their wicked adherents, as the Israelites did from Egypt, or a leper.

In Dr. Ryerson's effort to protect individuals who were oppressed, and who had no means of defence, except in the columns of theGuardian, he was often virulently assailed, and even his life threatened. On the 22nd December, 1838, he received a letter of this kind from an influential gentleman in Toronto, who threatened legal proceedings unless the name of a writer in theGuardianwas given to him. He said:—

In reply to your letter of last evening, I have to say that the writer of the communication in theGuardian, to which you refer, is one of the "peaceable members of the Methodist Society," whose character had been gratuitously and basely assailed by the Editor of thePatriotand his associate. He is a poor man, whose living depends upon his daily industry. Were he a rich man, I might consult with him on the subject of your letter; but being in those circumstances of life which disable him from sustaining himselfagainst your wealth, and relentless persecution, I at once determine to shield him from your power. I will not, therefore, furnish you with his name.In the published paragraph of his communication, the writer has asserted that certain things were published some time since in thePatriot, respecting the associate of its Editor, and an attempt was made to blast the character and prospects of several unoffending members of the Methodist Society—men, the daily bread for whose families must be taken out of their mouths, if the political or private character of their protectors is, in times like the present, believed to be what this associate has represented it to be. These men do not, like you, get rich upon "wars and rumours of wars;" their high church zeal would not, like yours, treble their business, and bring them into possession of a tolerable fortune in a few years. It is to blunt the assassinating dagger of a marked, and hitherto privileged slanderer, against the character of such men that I admitted the paragraph in question into theGuardian. If you are not the associate of the city Editor in this "crusade against the character of peaceable members of the Methodist Society," then you are exonerated from the remarks in the letters, and the columns of theGuardianare open to you for any reparation you can desire. Notwithstanding your attacks upon both my public and private character for years past; notwithstanding your late unprovoked attack upon my private character in a city newspaper; notwithstanding your late indirect threats upon my life, and theGuardianoffice in the event of an invasion; notwithstanding all this, and much more, I am still ready to open the columns of theGuardianto you, if you think that any kind of injustice has been done you. The letter to which you refer, mentions no name, but adverts to an already published portrait of a certain character who is, upon good grounds, believed to be figuring behind the scenes in this high church warfare against Methodists and others, and who is known to be indiscriminately scattering "firebrands, arrows and death," amongst all of Her Majesty's subjects who will not contribute to the profits of his newspaper craft in crying up his golden idol of a dominant church. It is amusing to see you, sir, who have availed yourself so lavishly, in all time past, of the freedom of the press to assail others, so sensitive at the mere suspicion of a mere report against causeless attacks upon private individuals, having been intended for yourself.

In the published paragraph of his communication, the writer has asserted that certain things were published some time since in thePatriot, respecting the associate of its Editor, and an attempt was made to blast the character and prospects of several unoffending members of the Methodist Society—men, the daily bread for whose families must be taken out of their mouths, if the political or private character of their protectors is, in times like the present, believed to be what this associate has represented it to be. These men do not, like you, get rich upon "wars and rumours of wars;" their high church zeal would not, like yours, treble their business, and bring them into possession of a tolerable fortune in a few years. It is to blunt the assassinating dagger of a marked, and hitherto privileged slanderer, against the character of such men that I admitted the paragraph in question into theGuardian. If you are not the associate of the city Editor in this "crusade against the character of peaceable members of the Methodist Society," then you are exonerated from the remarks in the letters, and the columns of theGuardianare open to you for any reparation you can desire. Notwithstanding your attacks upon both my public and private character for years past; notwithstanding your late unprovoked attack upon my private character in a city newspaper; notwithstanding your late indirect threats upon my life, and theGuardianoffice in the event of an invasion; notwithstanding all this, and much more, I am still ready to open the columns of theGuardianto you, if you think that any kind of injustice has been done you. The letter to which you refer, mentions no name, but adverts to an already published portrait of a certain character who is, upon good grounds, believed to be figuring behind the scenes in this high church warfare against Methodists and others, and who is known to be indiscriminately scattering "firebrands, arrows and death," amongst all of Her Majesty's subjects who will not contribute to the profits of his newspaper craft in crying up his golden idol of a dominant church. It is amusing to see you, sir, who have availed yourself so lavishly, in all time past, of the freedom of the press to assail others, so sensitive at the mere suspicion of a mere report against causeless attacks upon private individuals, having been intended for yourself.

Dr. Ryerson concluded in the following vigorous language:—

Sir,—After having exhausted the resources of a free, I may add a licentious press to destroy me, with a view of extinguishing the principles of civil and religious liberty which I advocate, you and your party now seek to have recourse to the "glorious uncertainty of the law" to accomplish what you cannot effect by free discussion before an intelligent public; but I am not concerned at your threats. I know the malice of the party of which you are a convenient, active, and useful tool; I know its resources; I know its power; but I also know the ground on which I stand. I know the country for whose welfare I am labouring; above all, I rely upon the wisdom and efficiency of that Providence, whose administration, I believe, if I can judge of the signs of the times, has better things in store for the inhabitants of Upper Canada (my native land) than the despotism of a dominant oligarchy, upheld and promoted by the persecuting, the anti-British, and anti-patriotic spirit of such partizans as yourself.

Rev. Matthew Richey wrote to Dr. Ryerson from Cobourg, in January, 1839, stating that some of the leading Methodists in Montreal were inducing subscribers to give up theGuardian, on the alleged ground of some disloyal sentiments contained in that paper of the 12th December.[73]Mr. Richey adds:—

I have written to a leading friend in Montreal, earnestly expostulating with him upon the precipitancy of such a course. I have not failed to apprise him of the bitter hostility of theKingston Chronicle, theToronto Patriot, theCobourg Star, andThe Church, to Methodism, and to say that, did they read these papers, they would not be surprised at the pungency with which you express yourself on the questions at issue between the arrayed parties of the Province.To intimate that the faithful discharge of your duty may expose you to gaol or gibbet ... is not very complimentary to the freedom of the Government under whose protection you are placed. Situated as you are in the burning centre of excitement, and aware of the high hopes, as well as high-handed measures of your opponents, you have great need of patience, and forbearance.

To intimate that the faithful discharge of your duty may expose you to gaol or gibbet ... is not very complimentary to the freedom of the Government under whose protection you are placed. Situated as you are in the burning centre of excitement, and aware of the high hopes, as well as high-handed measures of your opponents, you have great need of patience, and forbearance.

The leading Methodists in Montreal to whom Rev. Matthew Richey refers in the foregoing letter, having written to Dr. Ryerson on the subject of their complaint, he replied to them, on the 7th January, as follows:—

Your letter of the 24th ult. being rather unusual, both in matter and form, seems to demand more than a silent acknowledgment. I shall have much pleasure in complying with your request; but I should despise myself, were I capable of making any reply to the allegation contained in your letter.Not a few of you impugned both my motives and principles in former years, I have lived to furnish a practical commentary on your candour and justice, by being the first to excite in the Colonial Office in England a determination to protect British interests in Lower Canada against French ambition and prejudice. I may yet have an opportunity of furnishing a second similar commentary upon your second similar imputation.It is true that I am not of the high church school of politics, nor of the MontrealHeraldschool of bloodshed and French extermination; but I, nevertheless, think there still remains another basis of Scripture, justice, and humanity, on which may rest the principles of a loyalty that will sacrificelife itself in the maintenance of British supremacy, in perfect harmony with a vigorous support of the constitutional rights of the subject,—unmoved at one time by the fierce denunciations of revolutionists, and unshaken at another time by the imputations of ultra-sycophantic partizanship.Twice have the leading members of the Methodist Society in Montreal had the opportunity of insulting (and if their influence could have done it, of injuring) me—and twice have they improved it,—in May, 1834 [see page 148], when I was in Montreal; and in December, 1838—a juncture when a stain might be inflicted upon the character and reputation of any vulnerable minister of the Church that would tarnish his very grave. It is a pleasing as well as singular circumstance, and one that will be engraved upon the tablet of my heart while memory holds her seat, that when in 1834 I was insulted in Montreal, I was invited to preach in Quebec; and now that I am honoured from Montreal a second time in a similar way, I have this day received from Quebec a second token of "respect for my character and love to Methodism" of ten new subscribers to theGuardian, with a promise "ere long of from ten to twenty more."[74]

Not a few of you impugned both my motives and principles in former years, I have lived to furnish a practical commentary on your candour and justice, by being the first to excite in the Colonial Office in England a determination to protect British interests in Lower Canada against French ambition and prejudice. I may yet have an opportunity of furnishing a second similar commentary upon your second similar imputation.

It is true that I am not of the high church school of politics, nor of the MontrealHeraldschool of bloodshed and French extermination; but I, nevertheless, think there still remains another basis of Scripture, justice, and humanity, on which may rest the principles of a loyalty that will sacrificelife itself in the maintenance of British supremacy, in perfect harmony with a vigorous support of the constitutional rights of the subject,—unmoved at one time by the fierce denunciations of revolutionists, and unshaken at another time by the imputations of ultra-sycophantic partizanship.

Twice have the leading members of the Methodist Society in Montreal had the opportunity of insulting (and if their influence could have done it, of injuring) me—and twice have they improved it,—in May, 1834 [see page 148], when I was in Montreal; and in December, 1838—a juncture when a stain might be inflicted upon the character and reputation of any vulnerable minister of the Church that would tarnish his very grave. It is a pleasing as well as singular circumstance, and one that will be engraved upon the tablet of my heart while memory holds her seat, that when in 1834 I was insulted in Montreal, I was invited to preach in Quebec; and now that I am honoured from Montreal a second time in a similar way, I have this day received from Quebec a second token of "respect for my character and love to Methodism" of ten new subscribers to theGuardian, with a promise "ere long of from ten to twenty more."[74]

On the other hand, Dr. Ryerson, in theGuardianof October 17th, 1838, exposes the kind of warfare which was carried on against him by the high church party:—

I have been informed, upon the authority of creditable eye witnesses, that the number of thePatriotwhich contained four or five columns of attacks on the Editor of theGuardianin his private and public relations, has been carried from house to house for the edification of Methodists; that in one instance the wife of a rector had carried and read thePatriotto members of the Methodist Church and friends of the Editor, and then asked if they could be led by such a man as Egerton Ryerson?

In theGuardianof the 31st October, Dr. Ryerson says:—

Another example of this vicious and disgraceful mode of warfare is contained in a pamphlet published at theKingston Chronicleoffice, with a view of preventing the soldiers from deserting to the United States.... I copy the following infamous passages, purporting to be written by a deserter [name and regiment not given]:—Well, I deserted. Ryerson never rested till he worked me up to the deed. I was like a child in his hands—he led me as he pleased.... It was only to get clear off, and then the road to all that I ever wished for was open before me—so said Ryerson, etc.... Ryerson has two or three more on hand, etc.

Dr. Ryerson adds:—

I had marked other passages of a like character, from thePatriot, theCobourg Star, and theStatesman.... Such are the barbarous weapons used to pull down the religious liberties of the people of this Province, and to establish a church domination.

While Dr. Ryerson was at the Conference at Hamilton, in 1839, Rev. D. McMullen, of Hillier, in a letter to him, said:—

I have read theGuardianwith some attention during the past year. I believe the general principles of political, civil, and ecclesiastical policy advocated in it are such as must be supported and ultimately prevail, or our country will be ruined. Yet, while I admire the talent displayed by you, itis still a question with me whether you, as a Methodist minister, in conducting a religious journal, are justifiable in going the lengths you do in discussions of a political character. I know that your ability and your intimate acquaintance with the state of things in the country, with parties, and all the questions at issue, etc., render you a very competent person (perhaps the most so of any other in the country) to write on these subjects; nor do I think that you ought to bury this talent, but that through some other medium than theGuardian, you should employ it for the country's good, and in a way that would occasion less dissatisfaction among our people, and excite and stir up less bad feeling against us and you from without.

At the same Conference, Dr. Ryerson received a strong letter of approval and encouragement from Mr. Hugh Moore, a highly respected and active member of the Church in Dundas. Mr. Moore said:—

I came to Hamilton this morning (13th June) to see you and to strengthen your hands in the course that you have taken, and are taking, in theGuardian. I could not get an opportunity of seeing you, so I take this way of assuring you of our hearty approbation and support,—as it is deemed necessary at this time to speak out. Go on; you speak the language of our hearts. I should have seen you at Toronto on my way from Montreal, and have told you of the opinion and feelings of our community here, but time would not permit. It is worthy of note that the people are determined to support you. May God aid and direct you and all that are with you!

Equally hearty was a letter which Dr. Ryerson received from Rev. John McIntyre, in September, 1839,[75]inviting him to come and preach for him in Perth. In urging him to comply with the request, Mr. McIntyre said:—

If the day is favourable, the people will assemble from all quarters. I know myself of persons who intend to come about 20 miles to hear you. You can have no idea of your popularity in this district, although principally a military settlement. Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and moderate Churchmen, consider you, as some Presbyterians were pleased some time ago to style you, "The Saviour of Upper Canada." Now, to disappoint their just expectation would be almost unpardonable. The people entertain so high an opinion of your abilities, that (as some have lately said) you could speak with five minutes' notice on any subject. I should be extremely sorry that they should ever hold any other opinion; but, at your departure from Perth, the people may say, as the Queen of Sheba did on her visit to Solomon, "It was a true report we heard of his acts, and of his wisdom, and behold the half was not told us."

Rev. G. R. Sanderson, also writing to Dr. Ryerson, said:—

I greatly regret these constant attacks upon you, who have laboured so arduously and struggled so perseveringly for the good of our country, and the settlement of the Clergy Reserves. I am sure, however, that you will have the warmest thanks of all true friends of their country; and that posterity will not withhold that praise which is due you for your indefatigable exertions.

I have already, on page 101, inserted a kindly letter to Dr.Ryerson from Rev. William Bell, Presbyterian minister, expressive of his sympathy with the course pursued by theGuardianon the Clergy Reserve and other questions. The following letters of the same character were from parties outside of Dr. Ryerson's own Church. Thus in 1839, the Congregational Association of Upper Canada passed resolutions approving of Dr. Ryerson's course—the last one of which was as follows:—

We express to the Rev. Egerton Ryerson our thanks for his able and persevering exertions to effect a settlement of the Clergy Reserve question, and our determination to afford him any and every support in his endeavours that it may be in our power to render.

Rev. James Noll in enclosing the resolutions said:—

I feel myself happy, Sir, to be the medium of communicating to you the sentiments and feelings of my brethren at a time when you are insulted and abused as a public disturber, a rebel, and a political demagogue, by those who are willing to sacrifice the peace, and even risk the safety of the Colony.... Allow me to assure you of my admiration of the fair, spirited, and able manner in which you have conducted this important and painful controversy.... The cause you are advocating is closely identified with the cause of God. Your object is not only the temporal but spiritual welfare of your country, and your friends are the great bulk of its loyal and well-disposed inhabitants.

Rev. John Roaf (Congregational), of Toronto, in a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated December, 1838, said:—

I am desirous of not omitting one of my duties in relation to the "Church question," and looking to you as the Leader of the non-established parties, am anxious to understand your views upon the rectory question. Should you also think of any other measure by which I and my immediate brethren can support the cause which you are so zealously and efficiently promoting, or can assist in weakening the opposition to which you are subject, I shall be happy in attending to your suggestions.

Mr. William Greig (Baptist), Bookseller, Montreal, in a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated June, 1839, says:—

As an ardent friend to civil and religious liberty, and an admirer of the course pursued by yourself as Editor of theChristian Guardian, I cannot but express my regret at seeing you assailed on all sides, and especially by those for whose good you have been exerting yourself. As a native of Great Britain, I am fondly attached to her civil institutions, and will yield in loyalty to no one. I cannot, therefore, but approve of any lawful and fair measures which will tend to bring all denominations to that level, that every one provide for itself. I therefore say, go on in your present course; keep up the fire, brisk and hot on the enemy, till they are routed. As I see several are withdrawing their subscriptions to theGuardian, the friends of civil and religious liberty, of whatever denomination, ought to come in and take their places. Although not a Methodist, please put me down as a subscriber to theGuardian.

FOOTNOTES:[72]Dr. Ryerson, early in his controversial career, adopted Lord Macaulay's motto: No misrepresentation should be suffered to pass unrefuted. We must remember that misstatements constantly reiterated, and seldom answered, will assuredly be believed.[73]The article in theGuardianto which reference is made, is the reply of Dr. Ryerson to several Methodists in Toronto who had signed the Address of the British Missionary party to the Governor; and who, in a letter to him, had repudiated the construction put upon the Address by thePatriot. Among other things the Editor said: The manly firmness with which the signers of this Address have resisted the cunning wiles of Egerton Ryerson, is a solemn pledge of their love and veneration for the glorious institution of the Empire.... Thus ever thought we of British Wesleyans; and thus thinking was our impelling motive for persevering for the first three years of our editorial career, in one incessant battering of the pernicious, seditious principles of Egerton Ryerson; the very first number of whose paper betrayed him to us,flagrante delicto, a pestilent and dangerous demagogue.... If his ambition were as legitimate and praiseworthy as his talents are commanding, he would be a far more valuable member of society than he can ever hope to be while hankering to return to the flesh pots of Yankee Episcopal Methodism, etc.Dr. Ryerson's reply was an elaborate defence of his opposition to the efforts of thePatriotparty to create a dominant Church, the application of the reserves to high church uses, and the establishment of the fifty-seven rectories.[74]In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated Montreal, 1st February, 1836, Rev. William Lord said:—Rev. Anson Green was here last week and preached. An Upper Canada Presiding Elder preaching with acceptance in Montreal! Who would have thought of such a thing when brother Egerton Ryerson and even brother Joseph Stinson were denied the pulpit![75]This gentlemen entered the Methodist ministry in 1835, and joined the Church of England in 1841. He died some years since.

[72]Dr. Ryerson, early in his controversial career, adopted Lord Macaulay's motto: No misrepresentation should be suffered to pass unrefuted. We must remember that misstatements constantly reiterated, and seldom answered, will assuredly be believed.

[73]The article in theGuardianto which reference is made, is the reply of Dr. Ryerson to several Methodists in Toronto who had signed the Address of the British Missionary party to the Governor; and who, in a letter to him, had repudiated the construction put upon the Address by thePatriot. Among other things the Editor said: The manly firmness with which the signers of this Address have resisted the cunning wiles of Egerton Ryerson, is a solemn pledge of their love and veneration for the glorious institution of the Empire.... Thus ever thought we of British Wesleyans; and thus thinking was our impelling motive for persevering for the first three years of our editorial career, in one incessant battering of the pernicious, seditious principles of Egerton Ryerson; the very first number of whose paper betrayed him to us,flagrante delicto, a pestilent and dangerous demagogue.... If his ambition were as legitimate and praiseworthy as his talents are commanding, he would be a far more valuable member of society than he can ever hope to be while hankering to return to the flesh pots of Yankee Episcopal Methodism, etc.Dr. Ryerson's reply was an elaborate defence of his opposition to the efforts of thePatriotparty to create a dominant Church, the application of the reserves to high church uses, and the establishment of the fifty-seven rectories.

Dr. Ryerson's reply was an elaborate defence of his opposition to the efforts of thePatriotparty to create a dominant Church, the application of the reserves to high church uses, and the establishment of the fifty-seven rectories.

[74]In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated Montreal, 1st February, 1836, Rev. William Lord said:—Rev. Anson Green was here last week and preached. An Upper Canada Presiding Elder preaching with acceptance in Montreal! Who would have thought of such a thing when brother Egerton Ryerson and even brother Joseph Stinson were denied the pulpit!

[75]This gentlemen entered the Methodist ministry in 1835, and joined the Church of England in 1841. He died some years since.

1778-1867.

The Honourable and Right Reverend Bishop Strachan.

The Venerable John Strachan, D.D., LL.D., Archdeacon of York, and subsequently (1839-1867) first Bishop of Toronto, was the chief clerical opponent which Dr. Ryerson encountered in the contest for religious freedom and denominational equality during nearly twenty years.

Dr. Strachan was born in Scotland, in April, 1778, and died at Toronto, in November 1867, in the 90th year of his age.

It was a singular coincidence that Dr. Strachan entered the ministry of the Church of England in May, 1803, just two months after Dr. Ryerson was born. Who could then have foreseen the respective careers of these two remarkable men! The one, the virtual founder and administrative head of the Church of England in Upper Canada for upwards of 60 years; and the other, although not the founder, yet the controlling head and leader of the Methodist Church in the Province for nearly the same period.

Dr. Strachan was an uncompromising high churchman. His exclusive views on the "priestly authority, and the catholic and apostolic character of the Church of England," were those of a church optimist, but they were not based upon any profound study of the subject, as his own statement will attest.[76]

It is interesting to note the causes which led Dr. Strachan to cling so tenaciously to the idea of "Church and State"—a union which he regarded as sacred, and ordained of God for the maintenance of His cause and Church on the earth. It is no less interesting to understand the reason why Dr. Ryerson as strenuously repudiated and resisted the practical application of the same idea to Canada. The reason in each case may be stated in a few words.

The one from early associations regarded the idea of Scottish parish churches and parochial schools, supported by the State, as eminently Scriptural, if not divinely enjoined from the earliest Jewish times. The other was brought up in a land where such a state of things had never existed, and where the pure gospel had been preached from the earliest times without the aid of a state endowment. He lived in a land, too, where the command to the Christian Church was felt to be fitly expressed by John Wesley, to take the "world as a parish" and preach the Gospel to every creature. The manner in which this command was to be obeyed was indicated by our Lord's example, when He sent forth His disciples with this injunction:—

Back to Index Next