Lord Sydenham frequently availed himself of Dr. Ryerson's counsel and co-operation. Shortly before the death of that able Governor, Dr.

Ryerson had gone to Kingston, as requested, on matters of public interest. The unexpected death of Lord Sydenham, on the 19th of September, 1841 (the immediate cause of which was a fall from his horse), called forth a burst of universal sorrow throughout the then newly created Province of Canada. One of the most touching tributes to his memory was penned by Dr. Ryerson, while on his way to Kingston to see him. It was published in the _Guardian_ of the 29th September, and republished with other notices in a pamphlet by Mr. (now Sir) Francis Hincks, then editor of the Toronto _Examiner_. From that sketch of Lord Sydenham's career I take the following concluding pa.s.sages:--

At the commencement of His Lordship's mission in Upper Canada, when his plans were little known, his difficulties formidable, and his Government weak, I had the pleasing satisfaction of giving him my humble and dutiful support in the promotion of his non-party and provincial objects; and now that he is beyond the reach of human praise or censure--where all earthly ranks and distinctions are lost in the sublimities of eternity--I have the melancholy satisfaction of bearing my humble testimony to his candour, sincerity, faithfulness, kindness and liberality. A few days before the occurrence of the accident which terminated his life, I had the honour of spending an evening and part of a day in free conversation with His Lordship; and on that, as well as on former similar occasions, he observed the most marked reverence for the truths of Christianity--a most earnest desire to base the civil inst.i.tutions of the country upon Christian principles, with a scrupulous regard to the rights of conscience--a total absence of all animosity against any person or parties opposed to him--and an intense anxiety to silence dissensions and discord, and render Canada contented, happy and prosperous.

... The day before his lamented death he expressed his regret that he had not given more of his time to religion.... The last hours of his life were spent in earnest supplications to the Redeemer, in humble reliance upon whose atonement he yielded up the ghost.

After the publication of this letter in the _Guardian_, Dr. Ryerson received the following acknowledgment from T. W. C. Murdoch, Esq., late private Secretary to Lord Sydenham:--

I ought to have thanked you before for the numbers of the _Guardian_ containing your letter on the death of Lord Sydenham.

That letter I have read over and over again with the deepest emotion, and I cannot but feel how much more worthily the task of writing the history of his administration might have been confided to your hands than to mine. That I shall discharge the duty with affectionate zeal and good faith, I hope I need not a.s.sure you, but I fear my inability to do justice to so statesmanlike an administration, or to make apparent to others those nice shades of policy which const.i.tuted the beauty and insured the success of his government. In the meantime what are we to hope or expect from the new Governor Sir C. Bagot. My princ.i.p.al confidence is that Sir R.

Peel is too prudent a man to wish discredit to his administration by allowing the re-introduction of the old, bad system, and that consequently Sir Charles will be instructed to follow out to the best of his ability Lord Sydenham's policy.

FOOTNOTES:

[112] In the _Guardian_ of October 7th, 1840, Dr. Ryerson says:--Lord Sydenham well knows the feelings of reluctance and apprehension under which I a.s.sumed the responsibility of giving my humble and earnest support to the measures of his government in Upper Canada.... He well knows that I adopted the course I did with a deep consciousness that it would be attended with personal sacrifice, with no other expectation or wish but justice to the church to which I belonged--equal justice to other churches--and the hope of prosperity to my native country under an improved and efficient system of government. I did not indeed expect that hostility against me from London would be prosecuted to the extent it has been.... I have incurred the censure of the British Conference for supporting, and not for opposing, the government when it needed my support, and when it was in my power to have embarra.s.sed it.... As it respects myself personally, I shall not repine at having made the sacrifice, if the new system of government but succeeds, and the land of my birth and affections is made prosperous and happy. Note on page 199.

[113] This the Editor has been a.s.sured was also Rev. Dr. Potts'

experience of Dr. Ryerson as a hearer, several years afterwards, and during the time that he (Dr. Potts) was pastor of the Metropolitan Church, Toronto.

CHAPTER x.x.xVI.

1841.

Dr. Ryerson's att.i.tude toward the Church of England.

The constant references in this volume to Dr. Ryerson's att.i.tude of hostility to the exclusive claims and pretensions put forth on behalf of the Church of England in this province, require some explanation. His opponents sought to neutralize this opposition by endeavouring to make it appear that, because he opposed these claims and ignored these pretensions, he was hostile to the Church of England as a great spiritual power in the land.[114] He had himself often pointed out the fallacy of this reasoning, and drawn so clear a distinction between men and things in the controversy--the Church and her representatives--that I cannot add any thing to what he has written on the subject. In one letter he said:--

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

Again, in a letter to Hon. W. H. Draper, on the clergy reserve question, dated October 12th, 1838, he said:--

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

Dr. Ryerson's att.i.tude to the Church of England was clearly defined in a private and friendly correspondence between him and John Kent, Esq., Editor of _The Church_ newspaper, in 1841-42. (See page 97.) That paper was established in May, 1837, as the organ of the Church of England in Upper Canada. It was at first edited by Rev. Dr. (afterwards Bishop) Bethune, rector of Cobourg. In 1841, John Kent, Esq., became its editor.[115] In the religions controversies of those days _The Church_, was ably edited. It was a decided champion of the high church, or Puseyite party, and, as such it came into constant conflict with the Wesleyan Methodists and their organ, the _Christian Guardian_, and especially with its chief editor, Dr. Ryerson. On the 21st December, 1841, Dr. Ryerson wrote a letter for insertion in _The Church_, and accompanied it with a private note to Mr. Kent. From that letter I make the following extracts:--

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

I have stated on former occasions--and perhaps my two years'

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Ryerson concludes his letter in the following truthful and striking language:--

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

In his private note to Mr. Kent, Dr. Ryerson said:--

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

On the 22nd of December, Mr. Kent replied to Dr. Ryerson:--

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

From a glance at your letters, I fondly hope that some gleam of light is breaking in upon us all. My firm conviction is that the doctrine of the apostolical succession will be the bond of union and the cementer of differences, now apparently impossible. You must have studied the question--and how can your vivid and clear mind elude its force? Must there not be some one apostolical mode of conferring the ministerial functions, or must it be open to all, and Quakerism be right? I do not think I have been the a.s.sailant.

The _Guardian_ is outrageously personal and unscrupulous in its misstatements.... I am far from thinking that I am meek and gentle enough; but I have carefully excluded personalities,--though I readily concede that my course of argument, which pervades all I write or select, has been to cut away the ground from under the feet of every denomination in the province, outside of the Church.

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

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

On the 29th December, Dr. Ryerson wrote a private note again to Mr.

Kent. He said:--I was glad to learn by the last _Church_ that you will give my remarks a place in your columns, and that you cordially and elegantly respond to the general spirit and design of them....

I have had a correspondence with the Editor of the _Guardian_ in reference to the mode of conducting it, in regard to the Church of England, and in some other respects. I am happy to be able to say that he has at length yielded to my reasonings and recommendations, and will, I have no doubt, conduct the _Guardian_ in accordance with the general views expressed in my communications to you.[116] To-day's _Guardian_, as you see, presents a visible and agreeable improvement in the points referred to.

I blame you not for your strict and high principles as a churchman, but I do not think that you do now make sufficient allowance for difference of forms and ceremonies in the common faith of Protestantism. I think you should allow as much as Archbishop (Lord Keeper) Williams has done, and as much as is involved in the pa.s.sage quoted by him from Irenaeus.

Why should we be "unchurched" any more than the continental churches?

Mr. Kent, in reply to Dr. Ryerson (31st December), said:--

I trust you will think that in the remarks which I have made on your letter in _The Church_, I have met your overtures in a pacific and cordial spirit. I am sure that my remarks will be much more acceptable to churchmen, so far as such remarks are friendly to you, than they will be to others not belonging to our pale. I have not consulted a soul about what I have written, nor have I shown your pleasing reply to my first note to any one save good and safe Mr. Henry Rowsell; though I should like to show it to Rev. H. J.

Grasett, and Bishop Strachan. You need never be afraid of what you say to me in confidence.... It is certainly much more consistent in you (provided only you get rid of Mr. Wesley's authority, and then, by the way, you destroy your genealogy and succession) to call yourselves a Church, than to be of the Church and not in it.... You are said to possess some fine old Divinity works. You cannot have read them without some approximation to our Church.

You are not in the position of the continental Churches. No constraint is upon you. You can get Episcopacy, if you desire it.

Neither does the Church of England stand relatively towards you, as the Gallican Church towards the Huguenots. You admit the purity of our doctrine, and do not consider our discipline unscriptural. If you were to read Bishop Stillingfleet on Separation, I think you would open up new trains of thought. I just became so staunch an Episcopalian, from viewing the matter extrinsically of Scripture and history, and was led to conclude, from the nature of things, that there can be but one valid ministry.

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

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

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

Dr. Ryerson wrote a reply to the strictures of _The Church_ newspaper, and on the 26th addressed a private note on the subject to Mr. Kent, in which he said:--

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

I believe in your perfect sincerity and personal disinterestedness and kindness, but I must say that you do not appear from the last _Church_ to suppose it possible for a man to think in a different channel from yourself without endangering his t.i.tle to the skies, or to common sense, and without absolutely forfeiting his claim to orthodox Christianity. I refer not all to your maintenance of apostolic succession, but to your unqualified reprobation of the motives, feelings, and character of all who are not of your own fold. How different are the sentiments and spirit of Bishop Onderdonk's essay in support of the "Divine Right of Episcopacy"