In combatting the idea that his editorial opinions in the _Guardian_ were necessarily "the opinions of the Methodists" as a body, and that they were responsible for them, Dr. Ryerson, in the _Guardian_ of 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 unbia.s.sed 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 compa.s.sionately, 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.

As soon as this extraordinary pastoral had appeared, Dr. Ryerson addressed a letter of some length to the _Guardian_, 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 const.i.tutional expression of them, is any just cause of excluding from the Lord'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 a.s.sociation--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 dispa.s.sionate 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 embarra.s.sment 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 a.s.sertion 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 the _Guardian_. It was a balm to the afflicted heart. It was a precious cordial poured forth. Your letter was sent from house to house, from cottage to 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 the _Guardian_ next 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 t.i.tle 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 the _Guardian_ was 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 pa.s.sing 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 Cla.s.s-meeting question.

CHAPTER XXVI.

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 a.s.sumptions.--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 n.o.ble 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 a.s.sailed, 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 a.s.sailants. 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 a.s.sailed 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 vigorous language, 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 Toronto _Patriot_ having 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 circ.u.mstance took place, was defeated as a candidate for the House of a.s.sembly, on account of a personal attack which he made upon me at the hustings! _Hinc illae lucrymae._ 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 a.s.signed 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 the _Standard_, 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 the _Times_, signed "A Canadian," testify. Even his Kingston slanderer admits that the facts stated in these letters were, in the main exceedingly correct, indisputably true, and for the publication of which he is ent.i.tled to the grateful thanks of every loyal subject throughout British North America. But the malice of an adversary is too often swifter than the grat.i.tude 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 the _Times_ at their own expense. And it is to the honour of the n.o.ble 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 a.s.sociates 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 ill.u.s.tration in Dr. Ryerson's history. In 1838, it was reduced to a system. The a.s.sailant was often "A Wesleyan," or, "A True Wesleyan," and under the friendly _aegis_ of four or five papers, which were usually hostile to Methodism itself, the attack would be made. From numerous examples noted in the _Guardian_, I select a specimen:--

The rebellious _Guardian_ is 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 the _Guardian_, he was often virulently a.s.sailed, 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 the _Guardian_ was given to him. He said:--

In reply to your letter of last evening, I have to say that the writer of the communication in the _Guardian_, to which you refer, is one of the "peaceable members of the Methodist Society," whose character had been gratuitously and basely a.s.sailed by the Editor of the _Patriot_ and his a.s.sociate. 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 circ.u.mstances of life which disable him from sustaining himself against 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 a.s.serted that certain things were published some time since in the _Patriot_, respecting the a.s.sociate 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 a.s.sociate 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 a.s.sa.s.sinating dagger of a marked, and hitherto privileged slanderer, against the character of such men that I admitted the paragraph in question into the _Guardian_. If you are not the a.s.sociate 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 the _Guardian_ are 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 the _Guardian_ office in the event of an invasion; notwithstanding all this, and much more, I am still ready to open the columns of the _Guardian_ to 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 a.s.sail 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.