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 noble 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 assailed, 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 assailants. 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 assailed 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 circumstance took place, was defeated as a candidate for the House of Assembly, 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 assigned 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 entitled to the grateful thanks of every loyal subject throughout British North America. But the malice of an adversary is too often swifter than the gratitude 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 noble 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 associates 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 illustration in Dr. Ryerson's history. In 1838, it was reduced to a system. The assailant 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 assailed, 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 assailed by the Editor of the _Patriot_ and his associate. 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 circumstances 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 asserted that certain things were published some time since in the _Patriot_, respecting the associate 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 associate 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 assassinating 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 associate 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 assail 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.
Rev. Matthew Richey wrote to Dr. Ryerson from Cobourg, in January, 1839, stating that some of the leading Methodists in Montreal were inducing subscribers to give up the _Guardian_, on the alleged ground of some disloyal sentiments contained in that paper of the 12th December.[73]
Mr. Richey adds:--
I have written to a leading friend in Montreal, earnestly expostulating with him upon the precipitancy of such a course. I have not failed to apprise him of the bitter hostility of the _Kingston Chronicle_, the _Toronto Patriot_, the _Cobourg Star_, and _The Church_, to Methodism, and to say that, did they read these papers, they would not be surprised at the pungency with which you express yourself on the questions at issue between the arrayed parties of the Province.
To intimate that the faithful discharge of your duty may expose you to gaol or gibbet ... is not very complimentary to the freedom of the Government under whose protection you are placed. Situated as you are in the burning centre of excitement, and aware of the high hopes, as well as high-handed measures of your opponents, you have great need of patience, and forbearance.
The leading Methodists in Montreal to whom Rev. Matthew Richey refers in the foregoing letter, having written to Dr. Ryerson on the subject of their complaint, he replied to them, on the 7th January, as follows:--
Your letter of the 24th ult. being rather unusual, both in matter and form, seems to demand more than a silent acknowledgment. I shall have much pleasure in complying with your request; but I should despise myself, were I capable of making any reply to the allegation contained in your letter.
Not a few of you impugned both my motives and principles in former years, I have lived to furnish a practical commentary on your candour and justice, by being the first to excite in the Colonial Office in England a determination to protect British interests in Lower Canada against French ambition and prejudice. I may yet have an opportunity of furnishing a second similar commentary upon your second similar imputation.
It is true that I am not of the high church school of politics, nor of the Montreal _Herald_ school of bloodshed and French extermination; but I, nevertheless, think there still remains another basis of Scripture, justice, and humanity, on which may rest the principles of a loyalty that will sacrifice life itself in the maintenance of British supremacy, in perfect harmony with a vigorous support of the constitutional rights of the subject,--unmoved at one time by the fierce denunciations of revolutionists, and unshaken at another time by the imputations of ultra-sycophantic partizanship.
Twice have the leading members of the Methodist Society in Montreal had the opportunity of insulting (and if their influence could have done it, of injuring) me--and twice have they improved it,--in May, 1834 [see page 148], when I was in Montreal; and in December, 1838--a juncture when a stain might be inflicted upon the character and reputation of any vulnerable minister of the Church that would tarnish his very grave. It is a pleasing as well as singular circumstance, and one that will be engraved upon the tablet of my heart while memory holds her seat, that when in 1834 I was insulted in Montreal, I was invited to preach in Quebec; and now that I am honoured from Montreal a second time in a similar way, I have this day received from Quebec a second token of "respect for my character and love to Methodism" of ten new subscribers to the _Guardian_, with a promise "ere long of from ten to twenty more."[74]
On the other hand, Dr. Ryerson, in the _Guardian_ of October 17th, 1838, exposes the kind of warfare which was carried on against him by the high church party:--
I have been informed, upon the authority of creditable eye witnesses, that the number of the _Patriot_ which contained four or five columns of attacks on the Editor of the _Guardian_ in his private and public relations, has been carried from house to house for the edification of Methodists; that in one instance the wife of a rector had carried and read the _Patriot_ to members of the Methodist Church and friends of the Editor, and then asked if they could be led by such a man as Egerton Ryerson?
In the _Guardian_ of the 31st October, Dr. Ryerson says:--
Another example of this vicious and disgraceful mode of warfare is contained in a pamphlet published at the _Kingston Chronicle_ office, with a view of preventing the soldiers from deserting to the United States.... I copy the following infamous passages, purporting to be written by a deserter [name and regiment not given]:--Well, I deserted. Ryerson never rested till he worked me up to the deed. I was like a child in his hands--he led me as he pleased.... It was only to get clear off, and then the road to all that I ever wished for was open before me--so said Ryerson, etc....
Ryerson has two or three more on hand, etc.
Dr. Ryerson adds:--
I had marked other passages of a like character, from the _Patriot_, the _Cobourg Star_, and the _Statesman_.... Such are the barbarous weapons used to pull down the religious liberties of the people of this Province, and to establish a church domination.
While Dr. Ryerson was at the Conference at Hamilton, in 1839, Rev. D.
McMullen, of Hillier, in a letter to him, said:--
I have read the _Guardian_ with some attention during the past year. I believe the general principles of political, civil, and ecclesiastical policy advocated in it are such as must be supported and ultimately prevail, or our country will be ruined. Yet, while I admire the talent displayed by you, it is still a question with me whether you, as a Methodist minister, in conducting a religious journal, are justifiable in going the lengths you do in discussions of a political character. I know that your ability and your intimate acquaintance with the state of things in the country, with parties, and all the questions at issue, etc., render you a very competent person (perhaps the most so of any other in the country) to write on these subjects; nor do I think that you ought to bury this talent, but that through some other medium than the _Guardian_, you should employ it for the country's good, and in a way that would occasion less dissatisfaction among our people, and excite and stir up less bad feeling against us and you from without.
At the same Conference, Dr. Ryerson received a strong letter of approval and encouragement from Mr. Hugh Moore, a highly respected and active member of the Church in Dundas. Mr. Moore said:--
I came to Hamilton this morning (13th June) to see you and to strengthen your hands in the course that you have taken, and are taking, in the _Guardian_. I could not get an opportunity of seeing you, so I take this way of assuring you of our hearty approbation and support,--as it is deemed necessary at this time to speak out.
Go on; you speak the language of our hearts. I should have seen you at Toronto on my way from Montreal, and have told you of the opinion and feelings of our community here, but time would not permit. It is worthy of note that the people are determined to support you. May God aid and direct you and all that are with you!
Equally hearty was a letter which Dr. Ryerson received from Rev. John McIntyre, in September, 1839,[75] inviting him to come and preach for him in Perth. In urging him to comply with the request, Mr. McIntyre said:--
If the day is favourable, the people will assemble from all quarters. I know myself of persons who intend to come about 20 miles to hear you. You can have no idea of your popularity in this district, although principally a military settlement. Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, and moderate Churchmen, consider you, as some Presbyterians were pleased some time ago to style you, "The Saviour of Upper Canada." Now, to disappoint their just expectation would be almost unpardonable. The people entertain so high an opinion of your abilities, that (as some have lately said) you could speak with five minutes' notice on any subject. I should be extremely sorry that they should ever hold any other opinion; but, at your departure from Perth, the people may say, as the Queen of Sheba did on her visit to Solomon, "It was a true report we heard of his acts, and of his wisdom, and behold the half was not told us."
Rev. G. R. Sanderson, also writing to Dr. Ryerson, said:--
I greatly regret these constant attacks upon you, who have laboured so arduously and struggled so perseveringly for the good of our country, and the settlement of the Clergy Reserves. I am sure, however, that you will have the warmest thanks of all true friends of their country; and that posterity will not withhold that praise which is due you for your indefatigable exertions.
I have already, on page 101, inserted a kindly letter to Dr. Ryerson from Rev. William Bell, Presbyterian minister, expressive of his sympathy with the course pursued by the _Guardian_ on the Clergy Reserve and other questions. The following letters of the same character were from parties outside of Dr. Ryerson's own Church. Thus in 1839, the Congregational Association of Upper Canada passed resolutions approving of Dr. Ryerson's course--the last one of which was as follows:--
We express to the Rev. Egerton Ryerson our thanks for his able and persevering exertions to effect a settlement of the Clergy Reserve question, and our determination to afford him any and every support in his endeavours that it may be in our power to render.
Rev. James Noll in enclosing the resolutions said:--
I feel myself happy, Sir, to be the medium of communicating to you the sentiments and feelings of my brethren at a time when you are insulted and abused as a public disturber, a rebel, and a political demagogue, by those who are willing to sacrifice the peace, and even risk the safety of the Colony.... Allow me to assure you of my admiration of the fair, spirited, and able manner in which you have conducted this important and painful controversy.... The cause you are advocating is closely identified with the cause of God. Your object is not only the temporal but spiritual welfare of your country, and your friends are the great bulk of its loyal and well-disposed inhabitants.
Rev. John Roaf (Congregational), of Toronto, in a letter to Dr. Ryerson, dated December, 1838, said:--
I am desirous of not omitting one of my duties in relation to the "Church question," and looking to you as the Leader of the non-established parties, am anxious to understand your views upon the rectory question. Should you also think of any other measure by which I and my immediate brethren can support the cause which you are so zealously and efficiently promoting, or can assist in weakening the opposition to which you are subject, I shall be happy in attending to your suggestions.