1829-1832.

Establishment of the "Christian Guardian"—Church claims resisted.

Dr. Ryerson takes up the Story of his Life at the period of the Conference of 1829. He says that;—

At this Conference it was determined to establish the Christian Guardian newspaper. The Conference elected me as Editor, with instructions to go to New York to procure the types and apparatus necessary for its establishment.[24] In this I was greatly assisted by the late Rev. Dr. Bangs, and the Rev. Mr. Collard, of the New York Methodist Book Concern.

The hardships and difficulties of establishing and conducting the Christian Guardian for the first year, without a clerk, in the midst of our poverty, can hardly be realized and need not be detailed. The first number was issued on the 22nd November, 1829. The list of subscribers at the commencement was less than 500. Three years afterwards (in 1832), when the first Editor was appointed as the representative of the Canadian Conference to England, the subscription list was reported as nearly 3,000.

The characteristics of the Christian Guardian during these three eventful years (it being then regarded as the leading newspaper of Upper Canada) were defence of Methodist institutions and character, civil rights, temperance principles, educational progress, and missionary operations. It was during this period that the Methodist and other denominations obtained the right to hold land for places of worship, and for the burial of their dead, and the right of their ministers to solemnize matrimony, as also their rights to equal civil and religious liberty, against a dominant church establishment in Upper Canada, as I have detailed in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pp. 129-246.

The foregoing is the only reference to this period of his life which Dr. Ryerson has left. I have, therefore, availed myself of his letters and papers to continue the narrative.

June—August, 1830.—With a view to correct the misstatements made in regard to the Methodists in Canada, and to set forth their just rights, Dr. Ryerson devoted a considerable space in the Christian Guardian of the 26th June; and 3rd, 10th, 24th, and 31st July, and 14th August, 1830, to a concise history of that body in this country, in which he maintained its right to the privileges proposed to be granted to it under the Religious Societies Relief Bill of that time.[25] He pointed out, as he expressed it, that—

His Majesty's Royal assent would have been given to that bill had it not unfortunately fallen in company with some ruthless vagrant (in the shape of a secret communication from our enemies in Canada) who had slandered, abused, and tomahawked it at the foot of the throne.

Oct. 11th.—Being desirous of availing himself of his brother George's educational advantages and ability in his editorial labours, Dr. Ryerson, under this date, wrote to him in his new charge at the Grand River. He said:—

I am glad to hear that you enjoy peace of mind, and feel an increasing attachment to your charge. It is more than I do as Editor. I am scarcely free from interruption long enough to settle my mind on any one thing, and sometimes I am almost distracted. On questions of right, and liberty, as well as on other subjects, I am resolved to pursue a most decided course. Your retired situation will afford you a good opportunity for writing useful articles on various subjects. I hope you will write often and freely.

Nov. 1st.—Another reason, which apparently prompted Dr. Ryerson to appeal to his brother George for editorial help, was the fear that the increasing efforts of the influential leaders of the Church of England to secure a recognition of her claims to be an established church in Upper Canada might be crowned with success. He, therefore, at this date wrote to him again on the subject, and said.—

The posture of affairs in England appears, upon the whole, more favourable to reform than in Upper Canada. We are resolved to double our diligence; to have general petitions in favour of the abolition of every kind of religious domination, circulated throughout the Province, addressed to the Provincial and Imperial Parliaments, and take up the whole question—decidedly, fully, and warmly. We must be up and doing while it is called to-day. It is the right time. There is a new and Whig Parliament in England, and I am sure our own House of Assembly dare not deny the petitions of the people on this subject.

Nature of the Struggle for Religious Equality.

During this and many succeeding years the chief efforts of Dr. Ryerson and those who acted with him were directed, as intimated before, against the efforts put forth to establish a "dominant church" in Upper Canada. A brief resumÉ of the question will put the reader in possession of the facts of the case:—

The late Bishop Strachan, in his speech delivered in the Legislative Council, March 6th, 1828, devoted several pages of that speech (as printed) to prove that "the Church of England is by law the Established Church of this Province." This statement in some form he put forth in every discussion on the subject.

The grounds upon which this claim was founded were also fully stated by Rev. Wm Betteridge, B.D. (of Woodstock), who was sent to England to represent the claims of the Church of England in this controversy. These claims he put forward in his "Brief History of the Church in Upper Canada," published in England in 1838. He rests those claims upon what he considers to have been the intention of the Imperial Parliament in passing the Clergy Reserve sections of the Act (31 Geo III., c. 31) in 1791, and also on the "King's Instructions" to the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada in 1818. He further contended that the "Extinction of the Tithes Act," passed by the Upper Canada Legislature in 1823, inferentially recognized the dominancy of the Church of England in Canada as a Church of the Empire. Beyond this alleged inferential right to be an Established Church in Upper Canada, none in reality existed. It was, therefore, to prevent this inference,—which was insisted upon as perfectly clear and irresistible,—from receiving Imperial or Provincial recognition as an admitted or legal fact, that the persistent efforts of Dr. Ryerson and others were unceasingly directed during all of those years.

Few in the present day can realize the magnitude of the task thus undertaken. Nor do we sufficiently estimate the significance of the issues involved in that contest—a contest waged for the recognition of equal denominational rights and the supremacy of religious liberty. All of these questions are now happily settled "upon the best and surest foundation." But it might have been far otherwise had not such men as Dr. Ryerson stepped into the breach at a critical time in our early history; and if the battle had not been fought and won before the distasteful yoke of an "establishment" had been imposed upon this young country, and burdensome vested interests been thereby created, which it would have taken years of serious and protracted strife to extinguish.

As the fruits of that protracted struggle for religious equality have been long quietly enjoyed in this province, there is a disposition in many quarters to undervalue the importance of the contest itself, and even to question the propriety of reviving the recollection of such early conflicts. In so far as we may adopt such views we must necessarily fail to do justice to the heroism and self-sacrifice of those who, like Dr. Ryerson, encountered the prolonged and determined opposition, as well as the contemptuous scorn of the dominant party while battling for the rights which he and others ultimately secured for us. Those amongst us who would seek to depreciate the importance of that struggle for civil and religious freedom, must fail also to realize the importance of the real issues of that contest.

To those who have given any attention to this subject, it is well known that the maintenance of the views put forth by Dr. Ryerson in this controversy involved personal odium and the certainty of social ostracism. It also involved, what is often more fatal to a man's courage and constancy, the sneer and the personal animosity, as well as ridicule, of a powerful party whose right to supremacy is questioned, and whose monopoly of what is common property is in danger of being destroyed. Although Dr. Ryerson was a gentleman by birth, and the son of a British officer and U. E. Loyalist, yet the fact that, as one of the "despised sect" of Methodists, he dared to question the right of "the Church" to superiority over the "Sectaries," subjected him to a system of petty and bitter persecution which few men of less nerve and fortitude could have borne. As it was, there were times when the tender sensibilities of his noble nature were so deeply wounded by this injustice, and the scorn and contumely of his opponents, that were it not that his intrepid courage was of the finest type, and without the alloy of rancour or bravado in it, it would have failed him. But he never flinched. And when the odds seemed to be most against him, he would, with humble dependence upon Divine help, put forth even greater effort; and, with his courage thus reanimated, would unexpectedly turn the flank of his enemy; or, by concentrating all his forces on the vulnerable points of his adversary's case, completely neutralize the force of his attack.

It must not be understood from this that Dr. Ryerson cherished any personal animosity to the Church of England as a Divine and Spiritual power in the land. Far from it. In his first "campaign" against the Venerable Archdeacon of York (Dr. Strachan), he took care to point out the difference between the principles maintained by the aggressors in that contest and the principles of the Church itself. He said:—

Such was Dr. Ryerson's tribute to the Church of England in, 1826. His disclaimer of personal hostility to that Church (near the close of the protracted denominational contest in regard to the Clergy Reserves), will be found in an interesting personal correspondence, in a subsequent part of this book, with John Kent, Esq., Editor of The Church newspaper in 1841-2.

With a view to enable Canadians of the present day more clearly to understand the pressing nature of the difficulties with which Dr. Ryerson had to contend, almost single-handed, fifty years ago, I shall briefly enumerate the principal ones:—

1. The whole of the official community of those days, which had grown up as a united and powerful class, were bound together by more than official ties, and hence, as a "family compact," they were enabled to act together as one man. This class, with few exceptions, were members of the Church of England. They regarded her—apart from her inimitable liturgy and scriptural standards of faith—with the respect and love which her historical prestige and assured status naturally inspired them. They maintained, without question, the traditional right of the Church of England to supremacy everywhere in the Empire. They, therefore, instinctively repelled all attempts to deprive that Church of what they believed to be her inalienable right to dominancy in this Province.

2. Those who had the courage, and who ventured to oppose the Church claims put forth by the clerical and other leaders of the dominant party of that time, were sure to be singled out for personal attack. They were also made to feel the chilling effects of social exclusiveness. The cry against them was that of ignorance, irreverence, irreligion, republicanism, disloyalty, etc. These charges were repeated in every form; and that, too, by a section both of the official and religious press, a portion of which was edited with singular ability; a press which prided itself on its intelligence, its unquestioned churchmanship and exalted respect for sacred things, its firm devotion to the principle of "Church and State"—the maintenance of which was held to be the only safeguard for society, if not its invincible bulwark. An illustration of the profession of this exclusive loyalty is given by Dr. Ryerson in these pages. He mentions the fact that the plea to the British Government put forth by the leaders of the dominant party, as a reason why the Church of England in this Province should be made supreme and be subsidized, was that she might then be enabled "to preserve the principles of loyalty to England from being overwhelmed and destroyed" by the "Yankee Methodists," as represented by the Ryersons and their friends!

3. The two branches of the Legislature were divided on this subject. The House of Assembly represented the popular side, as advocated by Dr. Ryerson and other denominational leaders. The Legislative Council (of which the Ven. Archdeacon Strachan was an influential member,) maintained the clerical views so ably put forth by this reverend leader on the other side.

4. Except by personal visits to England—where grievances could alone be fully redressed in those days—little hope was entertained by the non-Episcopal party that their side of the question would (if stated through official channels), be fairly or fully represented. Even were their case presented through these channels they were not sure but that (as strikingly and quaintly put by Dr. Ryerson, on page 94).

As an illustration also of the spirit of the Chief Executive in Upper Canada in dealing with the questions in dispute, I quote the following extract from the reply of Sir John Colborne to an address from the Methodist Conference in 1831.[27] He said:

Such was the spirit in which the Governor in those days replied to the respectful address of a large and influential body of Christians. He even went further in another part of his reply, and referred to "the absurd advice offered by your missionaries to the Indians, and their officious interference."[29] Such language from the lips of Her Majesty's Representative, if at all possible in these days, would provoke a burst of indignation from those to whom it might be addressed, but it had to be endured fifty years ago, when to question the prerogative of the Crown, or the policy of the Executive, was taken as prima facie evidence of disloyalty, and republicanism.

5. Into the discussion of the claims of the Church of England in Upper Canada, two questions entered, which were important factors in the case. Both sides thoroughly understood the significance of either question as an issue in the discussion; and both sides were, therefore, equally on the alert—the one to maintain the affirmative, and the other the negative, side of these questions. The first was the claim that it was the inherent right of the Church of England to be an established church in every part of the empire, and, therefore, in Upper Canada. Both sides knew that the admission of such a claim, would be to admit the exclusive right of that Church to the Clergy Reserves as her heritage. It was argued, as an unquestionable fact, that the exclusive right of the Church of England in Upper Canada to such reserves must have been uppermost in the mind of the royal donor of these lands, when the grant was first made. The second point was, that the admission of this inherent right of the Church of England to be an established church in Upper Canada, would extinguish the right of each one of the nonconformist bodies to the status of a Church. It can well be understood that in a contest which involved vital questions like these (that is, of the exclusive endowment of one Church, and its consequent superior status as a dominant Church), the struggle would be a protracted and bitter one. And so it proved to be. But justice and right at length prevailed. A portion of the Reserves was impartially distributed, on a common basis among the denominations which desired to share in them, and the long-contested claims of the Church of England to the exclusive status of an established church were at length emphatically repudiated by the Legislature; and, in 1854, the last semblance of a union between Church and State vanished from our Statute Book.[30]—J. G. H.

Dec. 18th, 1830.—In the Guardian of this day, Dr. Ryerson published a petition to the Imperial Parliament, prepared by a large Committee, of which he was a member, and of which Dr. W. W. Baldwin was Chairman. In that petition the writer referred to the historical fact, that, had the inhabitants of this Province been dependent upon the Church of England or of Scotland for religious instruction, they would have remained destitute of it for some years, and also that the pioneer non-Episcopal ministers were not dissenters, because of the priority of their existence and labours in Upper Canada. The petition, having pointed out that there were only five Episcopal clergy in Canada during the war of 1812, and that only one Presbyterian minister was settled in the Province in 1818, declared that:

Jan. 20th, 1831.—As an evidence that the views put forth by Dr. Ryerson, in the Guardian, against an established Church in Upper Canada, were acceptable outside of his own denomination, I give the following letter, addressed to him at this date from Perth, by the Rev. Wm. Bell, Presbyterian:

Feb. 9th.—Some members of the Church of England in the Province evinced a good deal of hostility to the Methodists of this period, chiefly from the fact that they had been connected with the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and that the Canada Conference had formed one of the Annual Conferences of that Church, presided over by an American Bishop. As an evidence of this hostility, Dr. Ryerson stated in the Guardian of this date, that Donald Bethune, Esq., and others, of Kingston, had petitioned the House of Assembly:—

The Legislature appointed a Committee on the subject, and Dr. Ryerson, as representing the Methodists, Rev. Mr Harris the Presbyterians, and Rev. Mr. Stewart the Baptists, were summoned to attend this Committee with a view to give evidence on the subject. This Dr. Ryerson did at length, (as did also these gentlemen). Dr. Ryerson traced the history of the Methodist body in Canada, and showed that, three years before this time, the Canada Conference had taken steps to sever its connection with the American General Conference, and had done so in a friendly manner.[31]

The petition was aimed at the Methodists, as they alone answered the description of the parties referred to by the petitioners. The petition was also a covert re-statement of the often disproved charge of disloyalty, etc., on the part of the Methodists. The House very properly came to the conclusion—

This, however, was a sample of the favourite mode of attack, and the system of persecution to which the early Methodists were exposed in this Province. At the same session of Parliament in 1831, the Marriage Bill, which had been before the House each year for six successive years, was finally passed. This Bill gave to the Methodists and to other non-Episcopal ministers the right for the first time to solemnize matrimony in Upper Canada.

Feb. 19th.—Sir John Colborne, the Lieutenant-Governor, having nominated an Episcopal chaplain to the House of Assembly, the question, "Is the Church of England an established church in Upper Canada?" was again debated in the House of Assembly and discussed in the newspapers. With a view to a calm, dispassionate, and historical refutation of the claims set up by the Episcopal Church on the subject, Dr. Ryerson reprinted in the Guardian of this day, the sixth of a series of letters which he had addressed from Cobourg to Archdeacon Strachan, in May and June, 1828. It covered the whole ground in dispute.[32]

Nov. 6th, 1832.—Archdeacon Strachan, in his sermon, preached at the visitation of the Bishop of Quebec at York, on the 5th of September, speaking of the Methodists, said that he would—

In reply to this statement, Dr. Ryerson wrote from St. Catharines to the Editor of the Guardian. He pointed out that:—

It was not until after Archdeacon Strachan's sermon on the death of the former Bishop of Quebec was published, in 1826, that a single word was written, and then to refute his slanders. In that sermon, when accounting for the few who attend the Church of England, the Archdeacon said that their attendance discouraged the minister, and that—

Again, in May, 1827, Archdeacon Strachan sent an "Ecclesiastical Chart" to the Colonial Office, and in the letter accompanying it stated that:—

Who then [Dr. Ryerson asked] was the author of contention? Who was the aggressor? Who provoked hostilities? The slanders in the Chart were published in Canada, and in England, by Dr. Strachan before a single effort was made by a member of any denomination to counteract his hostile measures, or a single word was said on the subject.

---

Nov. 19th, 1834.—In connection with this subject I insert here the following reply (containing several historical facts) to a singularly pretentious letter which Dr. Ryerson had inserted in the Guardian of this date, denouncing the opposition of a certain "sect called Methodists" to the claims of the Church of England as an established church in the Colony. The reply was inserted in order to afford strangers and new settlers in Upper Canada correct information on the subject, and to disprove the statement of the writer of the letter, Dr. Ryerson mentioned the following facts:—

The pretensions of the Episcopal clergy began to be disputed by the clergy of the Church of Scotland as soon as it was known that the former had got themselves erected into a corporation. This was, I believe, in 1820.[34] The subject was brought before the House of Assembly in 1824, and the House in 1824, '25, '26, '27, passed resolutions remonstrating against the exclusive claims of the Episcopal clergy. From 1822 to 1827 several pamphlets were published on both sides of the question, and much was said in the House of Assembly; but during this period not one word was written by any minister or member of the Methodist Church, nor did the Methodists take any part in it, though their ministers were not even allowed to solemnize matrimony—a privilege then enjoyed by Calvinistic ministers—and though individual ministers had been most maliciously and cruelly persecuted, under the sanction of judicial authority.... But in the statements drawn up for the Imperial Government by the Episcopal clergy during the years mentioned, the extirpation of the Methodists was made one principal ground of appeal by the Episcopal clergy for the exclusive countenance and patronage of His Majesty's Government. Some of these documents at length came before the Canadian public; and in 1827 a defence of the Methodists and other religious denominations was put forth by the writer of these remarks in the form of a "Review of a Sermon preached by the Archdeacon of York." Up to this time not one word was said on "the church question" by the Methodists. But it was so warmly agitated by others, that in the early part of 1827 Archdeacon Strachan, an executive and legislative 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:—

---

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:—

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.

---