The Story of My Life. Egerton Ryerson

councillor, was sent to London to support the claims of the Episcopal clergy at the Colonial Office. His ecclesiastical chart and other communications were printed by order of the Government, and soon found their way into the provincial newspapers, and gave rise to such a discussion, and excited such a feeling throughout the Province as was never before witnessed. The shameful attack upon the character of the Methodist ministry, whose unparalleled labours and sufferings, usefulness, and unimpeachable loyalty were known and appreciated in the Province, and the appeal to the King's Government to aid in exterminating them from the country excited strong feelings of indignation and sympathy in the public mind. The House of Assembly investigated the whole affair, examined fifty-two witnesses, adopted an elaborate report, and sent home an address to the King condemning the statements of the agent of the Episcopal clergy, and remonstrating against the establishment of a dominant church in the Province.[35] The determination to uproot the Methodists was carried so far in those by-gone days of civil and ecclesiastical despotism, that the Indians were told by executive sanction that unless they would become members of the Church of England, the Government would do nothing for them! In further support of my statement, I quoted four Episcopal addresses and sermons, sufficient to show who were the first and real aggressors in this matter—certainly not the Methodists.

      As a sample of Dr. Ryerson's controversial style in 1826, when he wrote the Review of Archdeacon Strachan's sermon (to which he refers above) I quote a paragraph from it. In replying to the Archdeacon's "remarks on the qualifications, motives, and conduct of the Methodist itinerant preachers," which Dr. Ryerson considered "ungenerous and unfounded," he proceeded:—

The Methodist preachers do not value themselves upon the wealth, virtues, or grandeur, of their ancestry; nor do they consider their former occupation an argument against their present employment or usefulness. They have learned that the Apostles were once fishermen; that a Milner could once throw the shuttle; that a Newton once watched his mother's flock. … They are likewise charged with "preaching the Gospel out of idleness." Does the Archdeacon claim the attribute of omniscience? Does he know what is in man? How does he know that they preach "the Gospel out of idleness?" … What does he call idleness?—the reading of one or two dry discourses every Sabbath … to one congregation, with an annual income of £200 or £300? … No; this is hard labour; this is indefatigable industry! … Who are they then that preach the Gospel out of idleness?—those indolent, covetous men who travel from two to three hundred miles, and preach from twenty-five to forty times every month?—who, in addition to this, visit from house to house, and teach young and old repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ?—those who continue this labour year after year … at the enormous salary of £25 or £50 per annum?—these are the men who "preach the Gospel out of idleness!" O bigotry! thou parent of persecution; O envy! thou fountain of slander; O covetousness! thou god of injustice! would to heaven ye were banished from the earth![36]

      Jan. 22nd, 1831.—In the Guardian of this day Dr. Ryerson publishes a letter from the Rev. Richard Watson to the trustees of the Wesleyan University, in Connecticut, declining the appointment of Professor of Belles Lettres and Moral Philosophy. He says:—

      To Belles Lettres I have no pretensions; Moral Philosophy I have studied, and think it a most important department, when kept upon its true principles, both theological and philosophic. Being, however, fifty years old, and having a feeble constitution, I do not think it would be prudent in me to accept.

      During this year (1831) Dr. Ryerson engaged in a friendly controversy with Vicar-General Macdonnell, Editor of the Catholic, published in Kingston. This controversy included six letters from Dr. Ryerson, and five from the Vicar-General, published in the Christian Guardian. It touched upon the leading questions at issue between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The correspondence was broken off by the Vicar-General.

      FOOTNOTES:

       Table of Contents

      [24] The following is a copy of the document under the authority of which Dr. Ryerson was deputed to go to New York to procure presses and types for the proposed Christian Guardian newspaper:—

      This is to certify that the Bearer, Rev. Egerton Ryerson, is appointed agent for procuring a printing establishment for the Canada Conference, and is hereby commended to the Christian confidence of all on whom he may have occasion to call for advice and assistance for the above purpose.

       (Signed) William Case, Superintendent. James Richardson, Secretary.

       Ancaster, Upper Canada,}

       Sept. 4th, 1829. }

[25] These seven papers, taken together, were the first attempt to put into a connected form the history of the Methodist Church in Canada down to 1830.—H.

[26] "Claims of Churchmen and Dissenters," &c., 1826, p. 27. (See p. 80.)

[27] For various reasons (apparently prudential at the time) this reply was never published in the Christian Guardian, as were other replies of the Governor.—H.

[28] This expression, "our Church," illustrates the fact which I have indicated in first paragraph on page 97.

[29] This charge, preferred by such high authority, was taken up boldly by the Methodist authorities. Rev. James (afterwards Bishop) Richardson, Presiding Elder, was commissioned to inquire into its truthfulness. He made an exhaustive report, proving the entire incorrectness of the statement, and that the whole difficulty arose from the persistent efforts of a Mr. Alley (an employé of the Indian Department) to promote his own interest at the expense of that of the Indians, and to remove out of the way the only obstacle to the accomplishment of his purpose—the Methodist Missionary. Dr. Ryerson having pointed out these facts in the Guardian, Capt. Anderson, Superintendent of Indian affairs at Coldwater, questioned his conclusion "that the advice given to the Indians was both prudent and loudly called for, and perfectly respectful to His Excellency." Dr. Ryerson then examined the whole of the evidence in the Case, and (See Guardian, vol. iii., p. 76) came to the following conclusion:—1. That sometimes the local agents of the Indian Department are men who have availed themselves of the most public occasions to procure ardent spirits, and entice the Indians to drunkenness, and other acts of immorality; being apparently aware that with the introduction of virtue and knowledge among these people will be the departure of gain which arises from abuse, fraud, and debauchery. 2. That these agents are not always men who respect the Sabbath. 3. That the Missionary's "absurd advice" was in effect that the Indians should apply to their Great Father to remove such agents from among them. 4. That their "craft being endangered," the agents and parties concerned, "with studied design, sought to injure the missionary in the estimation of His Excellency, and to destroy all harmony in their operations, in order, if possible, to compel the Missionary to abandon the Mission Station." The effect of this controversy was very salutary. His Excellency, having reconsidered the Case, "gave merited reproof and suitable instructions to the officers of the Indian Department in regard to their treatment of the Methodist Missionary." Dr. Ryerson adds:—We had no trouble thereafter on the subject.

[30] Another disturbing element entered subsequently into this controversy. And this was especially embarrassing to Dr. Ryerson, as it proceeded from ministers in