Members of the Conference, in Dr. Ryerson's early days, unhesitatingly obeyed the directions of the Conference--many regarding it as the voice of G.o.d in the Church--and went forth, without scrip or purse, everywhere, even to the remotest corner of the land, bearing the good tidings, not considering their pecuniary interests,[77] or even their lives dear unto them, so that they might win souls for the Master.[78]

Dr. Strachan's views on the question of State aid to churches were clearly, on the other hand, the result of his observations, in Scotland.

They are prominently brought out in his memorable speech, delivered in the Legislative Council, on the 6th of March, 1828. He says:--

Have not the Methodists in this Province ... ever shown themselves the enemies of the Established Church? Are they not at this moment labouring to separate religion from the State, with which it ought to be firmly united?... Has it not been the primary object of all enemies to regular government ... to pull down religious establishments?... If they tell me the Ecclesiastical establishments are great evils, I bid them look to England and Scotland, each of which has a religious establishment, and to these establishments are they mainly indebted for their vast superiority to other nations. To what but her Established Church, and the Parochial Schools under her direction, does Scotland owe her high reputation for moral improvement. (Pages 27 and 28.)

Again, in a remarkable letter to his friend (Rev. Dr. Thomas Chalmers, of Edinburgh[79]), written in 1832, on the Life and Character of Bishop Hobart of New York, Dr. Strachan relates a conversation with that Bishop in which he took him severely to task for extolling the voluntary system of the American Episcopal Church as compared with the endowed State Church of England. I make a few extracts:--

Let us look at the Episcopal Church of the United States, and see what moral effect it can have on the population, as a source of religious instruction.... The influence of the two Churches as confined to England and New York (alone) is as one to seventy....

Such influence on the manners and habits of the people [in that state] is next to nothing, and yet you extol your Church above that of England, and exclaim against establishment! Add to this, the dependence of your clergy upon the people for support--a state of things which is attended with most pernicious consequences ... but in general, the clergy of all denominations in the United States, are miserably dependent upon their congregations.... It is the duty of Christian nations to const.i.tute, within their boundaries, ecclesiastical establishments.... For it is inc.u.mbent upon nations as upon individuals, to honour the Lord with their substance.

(Pages 41-47.)

Bishop Strachan's early and later writings abound in expressions of similar views. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, that a man of his strong convictions would seek to give practical effect to them in dealing, as opportunity offered, with questions of church establishment and the clergy reserves.

It is true that by his persuasive words and strong personal influence--when the object was the financial benefit of the Church--Bishop Strachan rallied around him many of the leading members of the Church of England in Upper Canada who aided him in his plans for endowing the Church out of the public domain. Yet it is also true that many equally sound churchmen were opposed to these schemes, and saw in them the germ of a fatal canker, which in time would be sure to destroy the Church's missionary zeal, and paralyze all of those n.o.ble and generous impulses which characterize a living Church in the promotion of Christian effort in the various departments of Church work.[80]

As time has pa.s.sed on the little band of loyal churchmen, who incurred the Bishop's unmerited censure for opposing his exclusive schemes of Church aggrandis.e.m.e.nt, has increased to thousands in our day. They deeply regret the success of those schemes, and deprecate the existence of clergy reserves and rectory endowments as in themselves fatal to the healthy development of Church work as an active and aggressive force in the Christian life.

It is not necessary to refer here to Bishop Strachan's views in regard to ecclesiastical polity. They are well known. On this matter also many sound churchmen differed widely (and still differ) from his views. Yet Bishop Strachan, while holding such strong and exclusive views, was kindly disposed towards "Sectaries" individually, and lived on terms of personal friendship with many of those whose opinions were opposed to his on church questions. In his Legislative Council speech, already quoted, he says:--

I have been charged with being hostile to the Scotch Church, and with being an apostate from that communion.... My hostility to the Kirk of Scotland consists in being on the most intimate terms with the late Mr. Bethune and Dr. Spark.... To both these excellent men I willingly ... pay a tribute of respect.... Nor have I ever missed an opportunity, when in my power, of being useful to the clergy of the Church of Scotland, or of treating them with respect, kindness, and hospitality. (Page 22.)

Again, in his sermon on "Church Fellowship," preached in 1832, Dr.

Strachan says:--

Widely as we differ from the Roman Catholics in many religious points of the greatest importance, we have always lived with them in the kindest intercourse, and in the cordial exchange of the charities of social life. The worthy prelate, by whom they are at present spiritually governed, has been my friend for nearly thirty years. With the members of the Church of Scotland we a.s.sociate in the same manner....[81] The merits of our sister Church cannot be unknown to you, my brethren. To me they are familiar, and connected with many of my cherished and early a.s.sociations.... Of that popular and increasing cla.s.s of Christians [the Methodists], who call themselves a branch of our Church, both at home and abroad, I would speak with praise. (Pages 23-25.)

As to his relations with Dr. Ryerson, I here insert two notes from the Bishop to him. The first is dated February 7th, 1838, as follows:--

The Archdeacon of York presents his compliments to the Rev. E.

Ryerson, and begs to acknowledge with satisfaction his courtesy in sending him a copy of his excellent sermon on the Recent Conspiracy, which the Archdeacon has read with much pleasure and profit. Such doctrines, if generally diffused among our people, cannot fail of producing the most beneficial effects, both spiritual and temporal.

The second related to the calamity which had befallen the Church of England congregation of St. James, in the destruction of its church building by fire early in January, 1839. Dr. Ryerson at once wrote to the Archdeacon offering him the use of the Newgate (Adelaide Street) Church. On the 6th January, Dr. Strachan replied as follows:--

I thank you most sincerely for the kind sympathy you express in the sad calamity that has befallen us, and for your generous offer of accommodation. Before your note reached me, I had made arrangements with the Mayor, for the Town Hall, which we can occupy at our accustomed hours of worship, without disturbing any other congregation. I and my people are not the less grateful for your kind offer, which we shall keep in brotherly remembrance.

In his Charge to the Clergy in 1853, and again in 1856, he pays a personal tribute to Dr. Ryerson. In the later Charge, speaking of the School system, he says:--

So far as Dr. Ryerson is concerned, I am one of those who appreciate very highly his exertions, his unwearied a.s.siduity, and his administrative capacity.

Dr. Ryerson's last reference to the Bishop is contained in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," written in 1880, as follows:

Upwards of fifty years have pa.s.sed away since my criticisms on Dr.

Strachan's "Sermon on the death of the Bishop of Quebec" were written. On the re-perusal of them, after the lapse of so long a time, the impression on my own mind is that Dr. Strachan was honest in his statements and opinions.... He was more moderate and liberal in his views and feelings in his later years, and became the personal friend of his old antagonist, "The Reviewer," who, he said, had "fought fair." (Page 145.)

FOOTNOTES:

[76] My mother (he said) belonged to the Relief denomination.... My father was attached to the Non-Jurants; and although he went occasionally with my mother, he was a frequent hearer of Bishop Skinner, to whose church he was in the habit of carrying me. He died when I was very young, but not before my mind was impressed in favour of Episcopacy.... I readily confess, that in respect to Church Government, my principles were sufficiently vague and unformed; for to this important subject my attention was never particularly drawn till I came to this country, when my venerated friend, the late Dr. Stewart, of Kingston, urged me to enter the Church, and as I had never yet communicated, that excellent person, whom I loved as a father, admitted me to the altar a little before I went to Quebec to take holy orders, in 1803. Before I had determined to enter the Church of England, I was induced by the advice of another friend (the late Mr. Cartwright) ... to make some inquiries respecting the Presbyterian Church of Montreal, then vacant. (Dr. Strachan's Speech in the Legislative Council, March 6th, 1828, pages 25, 26.)

[77] The stipends of Methodist ministers in those days were very small.

Rev. Dr. John Carroll tells me that the "quarterage" payable to an unmarried Methodist minister in America, at first, was only $60 per annum; then it was increased to $80, at which rate it remained until 1816, when the General Conference fixed it at $100, at which it remained until 1854. The rule for a married minister was double that for a single man, and $16 for each child. Besides quarterage, there was an allowance for travelling and table expenses. Two hundred dollars was the sum for salary, besides travelling and aid expenses, allowed to a minister up to 1854, and even then this sum was rarely ever paid in full.--H.

[78] Rev. H. Wilkinson in a note to Dr. Ryerson, in 1837, thus describes the kind of places to which some ministers had to be sent, and their duties and qualifications when there. He said: I require a man for a mission which lies about 200 miles from Bytown, up the Grand River (Ottawa), and which will be difficult of access in the winter. A suitable person could make his way northwards with some of the rude lumbermen, who now and then go up in companies. The brother would need to be strong in mind and body, and fervent in spirit. He would need to go on foot, and paddle a canoe, or row a boat, as the case might be, and thus reach his appointments in the best way he can.

[79] While in the vicinity of St. Andrews I contracted several important friendships, amongst others, with Thomas Duncan, afterwards Professor of Mathematics, and also with Dr. Chalmers, since then so deservedly renowned. We were all three very nearly of the same age, and our friendship only terminated with death, being kept alive by a constant correspondence during more than sixty years. (Bishop Strachan's Charge to his Clergy, June, 1860; page 10.)

[80] Speaking of the pa.s.sage of a Clergy Reserve Bill in 1840, to which the Bishop of Toronto was strongly opposed, Dr. Ryerson says: A considerable majority of the members of the Church of England in both Houses of the Legislature voted for the Bill, and were afterwards charged by the Bishop with "defection and treachery" for doing so. On this point, Lord Sydenham, in a despatch to Lord John Russell, dated, 5th February, 1840, said: It is notorious to every one here, that of twenty-two members (being communicants of the Church of England) who voted upon this bill, only eight recorded their opinion in favour of the views expressed by the Right Reverend Prelate, whilst, in the Legislative Council the majority was still greater; and amongst those who gave it their warmest support, are to be found many gentlemen of the highest character for independence, and for attachment to the Church, and whose views on general politics differ from those of Her Majesty's Government. (Dr. Ryerson's Criticism on Bishop Strachan's letter to Lord John Russell, dated, February 20th, 1851.)

[81] These kindly words the Bishop repeated in substance to the Editor some years since, when talking with him on the subject.--H.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

1791-1836.

The Clergy Reserves and Rectories Questions.

The discussion of the Clergy Reserve Question enters so largely into the Story of Dr. Ryerson's Life, that I give in this chapter a short, condensed sketch of its origin and history down to 1837-38. The remainder of the sketch will be developed in an account of the contest preceding the settlement of the question in subsequent chapters.

After the conquest of Canada, in 1760, the right of the Roman Catholic inhabitants to enjoy their religion was guaranteed to them in the Treaty of Paris, Feb. 10th, 1763. In 1774, an Act was pa.s.sed by the British Parliament (14 Geo. III., ch. 83) by which the right to their accustomed dues and t.i.thes was secured to the clergy of the Church of Rome in the then Province of Quebec (including what was afterwards Upper and Lower Canada). The same Act provided for the encouragement of the Protestant religion, and, for the support of a Protestant clergy, by other t.i.thes and dues.[82]

In 1791, the Province of Quebec was divided into Upper and Lower Canada, and, in an Act introduced into the British Parliament by Mr. Pitt, provision was made for their government. Sections 35-42 of that Act dealt with the maintenance and support of a Protestant Clergy, and this provision (1) allotted one-seventh of all lands which might be hereafter granted by the King for settlement; and (2) gave authority for the erection of "parsonages or rectories, according to the establishment of the Church of England," to be endowed out of the lands so allotted, etc.

(Sec. 38).

The alleged reasons which induced George III. to make provision for the support of religion in the North American Colonies, are set forth, so far as they related to the Protestant religion, by the late Bishop Strachan in a pamphlet which he published in England in 1827.[83] He mentions the fact that Great Britain, of all European nations, had hitherto made no provision for religious instruction in her colonies. He further states that:--

The effect of this was that emigrants belonging to the Established Church who settled in America, not having access to their own religious ministrations, became frequently dissenters; and when the Colonies (now the United States) rebelled, there was not, among a population of nearly 3,000,000, a single prelate, and but very few Episcopal clergymen.

The folly of this policy was shown in the strongest light during the rebellion; almost all of the Episcopal clergy and their congregations remained faithful to the King, demonstrating by their conduct, that had proper care been taken to promote a religious establishment in connection with that of England, the revolution would not have taken place.[84]

Aware of the pernicious effects of this narrow and unchristian policy, and sensible that the colonial ought to be attached to the parent state by religious, as well as by political feelings, the great Mr. Pitt determined (in forming a const.i.tution for the Canadas) to provide for the religious instruction of the people, and to lay the foundation of an Ecclesiastical Establishment which should increase with the settlement.

To accomplish this n.o.ble purpose, Mr. Pitt advised that one-seventh of the lands should be set apart for the maintenance of a Protestant Clergy. In Upper Canada this appropriation comprises one-seventh of the whole province: but in Lower Canada, one-seventh of those parts only which have been granted since 1791 (pages 2, 3).[85]

In a pamphlet published at Kingston, U.C., during the previous year, the substance of Mr. Pitt's remarks on that part of the Bill which authorized the setting apart of these lands, is given as follows:--

Mr. Pitt (House of Commons, 12th May, 1791), said that he gave the Colonial Government and Council power, under the instructions of His Majesty, to distribute out of a sum arising from the t.i.thes for land or possessions, and set apart for the maintenance and support of a Protestant clergy. Another clause (he said) provided, for the permanent support of the Protestant clergy, a seventh portion of the lands to be granted in future. He declared that the meaning of the Act was to enable the Governor to endow and to present the Protestant clergy of the established church to such parsonage or rectory as might be const.i.tuted or erected within every township or parish, which now was, or might be formed; and to give to such Protestant clergyman of the established church, a part, or the whole, as the Governor thought proper, of the lands appropriated by the Act. He further explained that this was done to encourage the established church; and that possibly hereafter it might be proposed to send a Bishop of the established church to sit in the Legislative Council. (Parl. Reg., vol. 29, pp. 414, 415.)[86]

Mr. Fox was entirely opposed to these arrangements. He said: By the Protestant clergy, he supposed to be understood not only the clergy of the Church of England, but all descriptions of Protestants....

That the clergy should have one-seventh of all grants, he must confess, appeared to him an absurd doctrine. If they were all of the Church of England, this would not reconcile him to the measure.

The greater part of these Protestant clergy were not of the Church of England; they were chiefly Protestant dissenters.... We were, by this Bill, making a sort of provision for the Protestant clergy of Canada [of one-seventh of the land] which was unknown to them in every part of Europe; a provision, in his apprehension, which would rather tend to corrupt than to benefit them. (Hansard, vol. 29, 1791, page 108.)

I have carefully gone through the whole of the debate on this subject, but I cannot find one word in it which would indicate that Mr. Pitt, Mr.

Fox, or Mr. Burke (the chief speakers), entertained the idea that endowing the clergy had any political significance as a precautionary measure for ensuring the loyalty of the inhabitants. The opinion was expressed that setting apart these lands was the most feasible way (as Mr. Pitt said) of providing "for the permanent support of the Protestant clergy," and of giving "them a competent income."[87]