The following private letters were successively received by me from Dr.
Ryerson while he was in Europe:--
_Paris, 23rd August._--I enclose my answer to Rev. James Spencer. I wish you would have it inserted in the _Globe_ and _Colonist_. As you are acquainted with all the circumstances in Canada, being on the spot, if you think it best to abridge, omit, or modify the words of any part of my communication, I would wish you to do so. Whatever course I may think it my duty to pursue in future, I wish in this communication to preserve that tone of remark which can give no offence to any minister or member of the Wesleyan Church. I will not be the offending party, and the responsibility of a wider breach between the Conference and myself will not be with me. What course duty may require me to pursue, I still leave to the direction of Infinite Wisdom, and to future consideration....
The Queen is in Paris this week, during which all business in my way seems to be suspended. She is received with great enthusiasm. We have seen her and the Emperor two or three times.
_Paris, 30th August._--Rev. Dr. Wood's denial of my having given him any pledge, or any thing that would be so construed, is full and decided, and if my brother John says anything at all, it will be, I have no doubt, less than I have stated in my letter. But still the main question of my position in the Conference is unaffected by these disclaimers. It appears from Mr. Spencer's statement (in which he seems to be sustained by others) that the terms of my letter were not acted upon or complied with by the Conference, but that the Conference acted upon a verbal assurance that I never made, or authorized. The simplest and most natural way for me to act, is, to withdraw my letter on these grounds, and to decline availing myself of, or recognizing an act of, the Conference based upon what I never proposed or authorized. Thus the responsibility of this irregular and absurd proceeding will rest with others, and I will stand, in the maintenance of all that I have stated and done, with the advantage of having acted a most conciliatory part.
But what I shall do must not be decided upon hastily, as I act for life, and finally. If it ultimately appears to me, as it does at present, that there is no consistent or justifiable ground on which I can remain a member of the Conference, it will then be for me to consider whether I can occupy the position of a layman, or enter the ministry of some other section of the Christian Church. I would like to have your own impressions and views on this point, in reference to my future standing and usefulness in Canada.
_Paris, 20th September._--In my reply to Mr. Spencer I did not allude to the cases of Montreal and Quebec. Perhaps the disclaimer which has been adopted by quarterly meetings in those places may require from me a remark or two. What I said was founded upon what was told me on reliable authority that no preacher had enforced, or dare enforce, the rule. I understand the same at Quebec. I have been assured, and I have no doubt the enquiry will establish the fact, that there are men, trustees of the Churches, in either or both Montreal or Quebec, who do not meet in class, and whose names are not, and I think whose names never have been, on any class book. But I think the natural and necessary effect of the whole is, to terminate my connection with the Methodist Church. I still remain undecided; but I see no other course on the ground of consistency, propriety, or duty, as well as of religious enjoyment. But this is only to yourself. The remaining question will be whether I should remain a private member of a Church, or enter another Church. On this point I am quite undecided. May I be divinely directed!
In a further letter directed to me from Paris in September, 1855, Dr.
Ryerson discussed the whole question at issue. After pointing out the unfair conduct of the Editor of the _Guardian_ in attacking and misrepresenting a member of the Conference, and then saying that his columns were closed against any further discussion of the subject, Dr.
Ryerson said:--The Editor of the _Guardian_ and others represent me as hostile to class-meetings. This may do injury, in the estimation of some persons, to a means of religious edification which I regard as one of the most efficient human agencies for promoting spiritual-mindedness among religious people. The responsibility of such a proceeding is with themselves. The Editor of the _Guardian_ represents this as a matter of dispute between the Conference and myself. This is wholly incorrect. The resolution of the Conference is avowedly based upon my letter, and upon that alone. That record cannot be falsified. The variation between the wording of the resolution of the Conference and the latter part of my letter referred to in it, is not of the slightest consequence. The acts of the Conference, as well as of the Legislature, are to be judged of, not by what may have been said by individual members in the course of discussion, but by its attested records and official papers.
Now with the same truth and propriety that my assailants charge me with having written against class-meetings, might I charge them with being opposed to prayer-meetings and love-feasts, and even the Lord's Supper, because they do not make the observance of all or of any one of these institutions (though the latter is expressly instituted by our Lord himself), a condition of membership in the Church of God. Because I have avowed my long-settled conviction that class-meetings ought not to be exalted above all the other ordinances and institutions of religion--giving as an authority the words of John Wesley himself--am I to be charged with having written against class-meeting? So far from having written against these meetings, I have expressed myself in the strongest terms in their favour; and I repeat that, after the public preaching of the Word, and the Lord's Supper, I believe class-meetings have been the most efficient means of promoting personal and vital piety among the members of the Wesleyan Societies.
Yet I am not insensible to the fact that Mr. Wesley found the prototype of this kind of religious exercises, not in any institution or practice of the Primitive Church for fifteen hundred years, but in a society of Monks called _La Trappe_, whose ardent piety Mr. Wesley greatly admired, the lives of some of whose members (such as the Marquis de Renty, etc.,) he wrote, and whose manual of piety (Imitation of Jesus Christ) he translated and abridged, for the use of his own Societies, and several of whose questions in conducting what may be called their weekly band or class-meetings, Mr. Wesley adopted, translated and modified, for conducting his own meetings of a similar character. These weekly exercises in the Societe de la Trappe were eminently instrumental in reforming, and kindling the name of devotional piety among its members; and Mr. Wesley found them equally useful among the members of his own Societies, and so they have continued till the present time. But will any Wesleyan minister in England or Canada--will any man of intelligence and honesty--venture to assert that Mr. Wesley ever intended that attendance at such weekly exercises should be an essential condition and fundamental test of membership in the visible Church of God? Will any one assert, or can he believe, that Mr. Wesley ever could have anticipated, or supposed, that such an application would, or could, be made of an institution which he expressly stated to be "merely prudential, not essential, not of divine origin?" But I am again met with the charge, on another ground, of having departed from Mr. Wesley.
It is said, in substance: "Mr. Wesley has committed class-meeting to us as a trust; it is not for us to inquire into the origin of the institution; it is our duty to maintain inviolably the trust committed to us--which trust Dr. Ryerson has violated." In reply, I remark that the statement of the question itself is fallacious, and the charge groundless. In the first place, the question assumes, what is contrary to fact, that Mr. Wesley instituted and committed the trust of class-meetings as a condition of membership in the visible Church of God, whereas he instituted and transmitted it as a means of grace among the members of a private society in a church. In the next place, the trust of class-meetings was only one part of a system which Mr. Wesley committed as a trust to his followers. The one part of that trust was as sacred as another, and the connection of one part with another is essential to the fulfilment of the obligation. Now one part of Mr.
Wesley's trust, and that on which he insists ten times more voluminously and vehemently than he ever spoke of class-meetings, was that his followers should attend the services of the Church of England, should receive the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper in it, should abide in the Church of England, and that whenever they separated from the Church of England they separated from him. These are so many trusts that Mr. Wesley committed to his followers in England, and on which he insisted as tests of membership in his Society; and in connection with these trusts, he committed the trust of class-meetings--"as the observance and practice of members of a private society in the Church of England." Have Dr. Bunting and others, who charge me with being anti-Wesleyan, fulfilled these trusts committed to them by Mr. Wesley?
Have they not wholly separated from the Church of England--ordaining their own ministers, administering the ordinances, claiming and exercising all the attributes of a Church, as much as the authorities of the Church of England herself. And while Mr. Wesley disclaimed exercising the office of excommunicating Church members, and denied that admission into or exclusion from his Societies was admission into or exclusion from the visible Church of Christ, my accusers exercise this authority in the highest degree--confessedly and avowedly admitting into and excluding persons from the visible Church, and making the attendance at class-meeting a test of Church-membership--which Mr. Wesley never believed, much less authorized. I leave it, therefore, to the judgment of every man of common sense to say whether there is the shadow of a reason for the pretensions and charges of my assailants. I am not surprised that Dr. Bunting and others should feel sensitive on the class-meeting test of church-membership, as it so enormously increases clerical power--the ruling idea of Dr. Bunting's legislation throughout his whole life. It virtually places the membership of each member in the hands of the minister. The quarterly class ticket, signed by the minister, is the only proof and title of membership for each member. If the minister withholds this (and he may be prompted to do so on many grounds, personal and others, irrespective of any suspicion, much less charge, against the moral or religious character of the member) the member is deprived of his membership, and this I believe has occurred in more than twenty thousand instances, in England, during the last six years, during which period the connection has experienced the lamentable and unprecedented loss of nearly a hundred thousand members, the fruits of the labours of an age.
_London, 5th October._--I know that my brother John was not pleased with my letter to Mr. Wood, read in the Conference. He told me so on the way to the Conference; he wished me to write a short letter, couched in general terms, and that the affair might be passed over in the Conference as quietly as possible--believing that to be the best way to accomplish the object I had in view. In this I could not agree with him, and stated that unless received in the terms of my letter, I did not wish to be received at all; nor did I wish the letter read if any opposition were apprehended. What has transpired shows, I think very clearly, that had I not been as explicit as I have, I should have been more grossly misrepresented, and with some degree of plausibility. I am exceedingly glad that I wrote as I did. It has removed all uncertainty on the subject. There can now be no mistake or misunderstanding. I do not think my friends have been frank with me in not telling me all that has transpired in the Conference. But it is not worth while to refer to these things now. The question is settled. I shall write to Dr. Beecham on the subject of the remarks reported to have been made in reference to me by Dr. Bunting and Mr. Methley, in the English Conference, and respecting my settled and avowed convictions and position--affording him an opportunity of stating how far he and others think such views are consistent with the relations I sustain to the Wesleyan Body. I shall also advert to the propriety of such men as Mr. Methley, or any member of the English Conference, assuming to exercise a censorship over the character of any members of the Canada Conference. After receiving Dr.
Beecham's answer, I shall finally decide as to my future course. I look upon my connection with the Wesleyan body as virtually terminated. I have not been in one of their chapels, or seen one of their ministers, since I left America. On seeing, at Boston, what Mr. Spencer had written, and what was likely to occur, I thought I would keep myself entirely aloof until the final issue of the whole affair.
_London, 10th October._--I wrote you on the 5th inst., under the influence of strong and indignant feelings. But I have since calmly, and with much prayer and many tears, for days considered the whole matter of Church relations. I have resolved to stand my ground in my present position, and fight out the battle with my assailants.
In a letter to me, written a few days afterwards, Dr. Ryerson thus states the conclusion which he had come to in regard to his remaining in the Methodist Church. He said:--Last Sunday I heard a very powerful sermon from Dr. Cumming on, "No man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself;" and I resolved, by meditation and prayer, to come to a conclusion on the subject of my Church relations, and future course. I walked, and wept, and prayed over the subject from seven till twelve o'clock last night, and the conclusion at which I have now arrived is to stand in my present position and relation, and maintain my views, and let my opponents do their worst, and thrust me out if they will or can.
If I lived to myself, that is, if I consulted my taste, feelings, personal comforts, and enjoyments, I could not remain in the Methodist Church a week; I have more views and sympathies with the evangelical clergy and members of any Protestant church than I have with such men as Mr. Spencer. But still I have, in the Providence of God, been called to labour in connection with the Methodist Church, and have been prospered in it; and I think, all things considered, I can do more good to stand my ground. If I do nothing else than secure to Methodist children and youth the recognition of their rights and privileges, and the appropriate religious instruction and care, that point alone will involve more good in the end than all I could do in any other section of the Christian Church. If Methodist pulpits should be closed against me, others will be opened to me in abundance.
_Paris, 18th October._--I feel very happy in my own mind since I have finally decided upon my future course, and which, I have no doubt you will think with me, is, under all the circumstances, the best that I could take. After the course which has been pursued towards me, I shall be free from all restraints on the matters respecting which they hoped to impose silence. I shall make the James Methleys, and the James Spencers, of both the English and Canadian Conferences, feel very uncomfortable, while I think I shall secure the respect and sympathies of various religious persuasions and parties in Canada, and the ultimate accomplishment of the great and divine end I have had in view. Mr.
Spencer's remarks that you enclosed are very weak and flat--more so than I expected. He speaks of a difference between the Conference and me. The difference is between him and his abettors (as individuals) and me, not between the Conference and me. The Conference has avowedly based its proceedings upon my letter--which is all I care for since my letter is published. If the terms of the resolution of the Conference are not in harmony with the terms of my letter, that is of no consequence to me now--it is for the judgment or taste of those who wrote it. I am glad to hear that my remarks on Mr. Spencer are favourably received by all my friends. Mr. Malcolm Cameron has said that if I never wrote another word on the subject I had mooted, or were I even to leave the Body, the subject would not sleep--it would be taken up by others--it could not sleep--and their attacking me, and I defending myself, was, in effect, discussing the question in the most telling manner.
_Paris, 8th November._--I am glad to learn that at that period when I was undecided, you entertained the views as to my relations and future course which I have at length decided to maintain and pursue. I will stand my ground and battle the affair with my adversaries, on both sides of the Atlantic, to the last. In order to exclude me from the Conference they must now bring charges against me; and, in attempting this, they will raise a difficulty such as they have never yet encountered, and will invest the whole question with an interest and importance that they little dream of. Indeed, they have done so already.
_Paris, 14th November._--I am happy to learn that you also entirely concur in the course I have decided to pursue. I care not a fig for all that the parties to whom you refer may do or try to do. I have not a shadow of doubt as to the result. It is most strange that rashness should be attributed to you in the matter. It was the course best calculated to defeat the objects they wish to counteract. I do not think my letters would have appeared at all in the _Guardian_ had you not pressed the matter as you did; and had I not taken the course I did at Belleville, the questions could not have been brought before the body as they can and must. I have written a reply to the _Guardian_--it contains sixteen pages of letter paper. But after your suggestion, I will keep it another week, and may, perhaps, substitute for it a note making my acknowledgements to the daily press of Toronto, and stating my position and intended course of proceedings. I think something of this kind may be best to counteract the misrepresentations which they are no doubt industriously circulating. Possibly I may not say anything at all, as you suggest.
_Paris, 29th November._--I cannot but smile at the pamphlet on the Class-meeting question, after it had been declared as the determination of the Conference that the subject of my letters was not to be agitated.
I could not be more effectually aided in what I would wish to see accomplished than by such a publication, as it will afford me an opportunity to re-consider the subject, and to say what I please on the general subject, and expose every petty sophism and absurdity of my opponents, and to show what are really the rights of the members of the Church in more senses than one. The strength of the opposite side of the question is silence and Conference authority; the strength of my side is discussion. For one on the opposite side to write and publish a pamphlet is to give up Conference authority, and to come upon the ground of reason and Scripture. It is also an abandonment of the pretence that the question is not a debatable or open one. There being several writers on one side and only one on the other, gives the latter an advantage. He can point out the variations and weak points of the former, illustrating the criteria of error and truth. The whole will afford me an opportunity to deal with general principles, and curiosity and enquiry will be attached to what I can say in reply to such efforts to prove me heretical. I look upon all such occurrences as the ways of Providence to open the way of truth and righteousness.
Dr. Ryerson returned to Canada in time to attend the Conference at Brockville. While there he wrote to me, on the 6th of June, 1856:--Mr.
Spencer has given me notice that, as I have denied and repudiated the terms upon which I had been re-admitted into the Conference, when my name comes up in the examination of character, it will be moved that the resolution re-admitting me into the Conference be rescinded.
I am glad of this. It will afford me an opportunity of exposing the conduct of my assailants, and of entering into the whole question.
To-day the subject of class-meetings came up, by a philippic on the subject by one of the ministers, in connection with the return of members, and the manner of administering the Discipline. I at once accepted the challenge--reiterated my sentiments, and stated when the time came I should be prepared to show that they were founded on the Scriptures, the primitive Church, the Fathers of the Protestant Reformation, and such men as Baxter and Howe, down to the present time. What I said seemed to be favourably received by a considerable portion of the Conference. I think the Spencer clique (and it is only a clique) will be disappointed greatly when the affair comes up. I feel that I stand upon the Rock of Truth. I would that my soul were more fully baptized with the Spirit of the Truth, the principles of which I maintain.
On the 9th of June, he also wrote as follows:--This afternoon, on my name being called, Rev. J. Borland moved, seconded by Rev. W. Jeffers, the following resolution:--
_Resolved_, That as Dr. Ryerson has denied the authority of the verbal assurances given in his behalf at the Conference in London, and repudiated the basis upon which the resolution restoring him to his former standing in the Conference was founded; therefore, all that part of the said resolution which relates to his re-admission be, and is hereby, rescinded.
When the President came to the question as to the examination of character, he observed that that question was always considered with closed doors, and intimated to strangers to withdraw. I arose at once, and said that as far as I was concerned, notice had been given to me of a resolution to exclude me from the Conference, and that upon the ground of what had appeared in the public papers--that I had been misrepresented and maligned in the official organ of the Conference--in professed reports of what had taken place in the Conference, and I demanded, as a matter of right and equity, that the proceedings of the Conference should be public as far as I was concerned. A discussion then took place in regard to reporting. I at length moved an amendment that the proceedings of the Conference should be public as far as I was concerned. This was adopted by a large majority, though voted against by the whole clique hostile to me. Several of them made speeches against me. My brother John, Rev. E. Wood, Rev. R. Jones, Dr. Green, as well as others, stated what was said as to my pledge, just what I had supposed and intended; and my brother John made a most powerful speech, and scathed Mr. Spencer and others. His references to me were warmly cheered by an evident majority of the Conference. The cheers to the remarks maligning me seemed to be made by about fifteen or twenty--many less than I had supposed. I have no doubt they will be defeated by a very large majority. When the hour of adjournment arrived, the President asked me if I wished to make any remarks; I stated to the Conference I was willing to give my assailants the advantage of leaving their strong statements and attacks unrefuted and unnoticed until Monday morning. A large number of persons were present, and a strong popular feeling seemed to be excited in my favour. My opponents have themselves in the very position in which I have desired to get them, and I shall now have the best possible opportunity of exposing them.
At the request of the friends here, I have consented to preach to-morrow evening, notwithstanding the opposition of the preachers hostile to me. I feel as if God the Lord would help me on this occasion, notwithstanding my unfaithfulness and unworthiness; He has never failed me in such an extremity.
On the following Monday Dr. Ryerson's case was brought up for discussion. Rev. J. Borland made a strong appeal on behalf of his resolution. The _Canadian Independent_, of July 16th, in speaking of the debate said:--
Mr. Borland had not spoken long in support of this before he was interrupted by Rev. Dr. Wood, the President, who made this most important declaration, that--
He gave no verbal assurance for, or in behalf of Dr. Ryerson; that he received no such assurance from him; that the document he received from Dr. Ryerson was laid on the table, and read before the Conference, unaccompanied by any verbal statements or assurances of any kind from him.
This he afterwards repeated, when Rev. J. Spencer, the Editor of the _Guardian_, re-asserted the giving of such assurances. The co-delegate, Rev. J. Ryerson, also said that--
He never thought of pledging Dr. Ryerson to silence on any of these questions, and he was sure the Conference would not ask him to do so, as the Conference never gagged any man.
The _Independent_ then proceeds:--
Dr. Ryerson has been most unfairly treated. He has not denied having made application for re-admission, but only an application with pledges of silence. The resolutions of Conference, in 1854, accepting his resignation and warmly acknowledging his past services, and, in 1855, consenting to his re-admission, were never communicated to him, and were suppressed by the _Guardian_. This was most unmanly and unjust.[145] The matter now before the Conference was introduced at the Toronto District Meeting in his absence, and without notice being given him.[146]
He uttered some memorable things in his eloquent defence.
I believe the true foundation or test of membership in the Church of Christ is not the acute angle of a Class-meeting attendance, but the broad bases of repentance, faith, and holiness. I can have no sympathy with that narrow and exclusive spirit, the breadth of whose catholicity is that of a goat's track, and the dimensions of whose charity are those of a needle's point, whether inculcated by the Editor of _The Church_ on the one hand, or by the Editor of the _Guardian_ on the other. He would give no pledges, had no concessions or promises to make; would be accountable to the rules of the Church as others, and would stand in that Conference on the same footing as other members, or not at all. While he subscribed to all that had been said as to the utility of Class-meetings, and reiterated the grounds on which he had recommended and maintained them; yet, on the ground of Scripture obligation he demurred, and averred, in the language of Mr. Wesley, with whom they originated and who best knew their true position in the Church, that they are merely prudential, not essential, not of Divine institution.
The Editor of the _Independent_, in conclusion, said:--
We congratulate Dr. Ryerson on his successful defence.... We should esteem it a dire calamity, could any dishonour be attached to his name. He is one of the most devoted, conscientious, able and successful officers in the public service. In the school system of Upper Canada, he has built for himself an enduring monument, as a benefactor of the Province. He is a brave yet courteous champion for some of our most precious rights. May those who watch for his halting be confounded and put to shame!
After a reference to some personal matters, Dr. Ryerson, in the course of his remarks, showed that he was prepared to sacrifice much for the maintenance of the truth. He said: Shortly after the occurrence to which I have just referred, an act was got through the Legislature at the end of the Session of 1849, which excluded clergymen from visiting the public schools in their official character, and which would have excluded the Bible from the schools. What was my conduct on the occasion? Why, I forthwith placed my office at the disposal of the Head of the Government sooner than administer such a law. The result was the Government authorized the suspension of the Act, and caused its repeal at the next Session of Parliament.
The debate lasted over two days, and was finally closed by the adoption of an amendment by the Rev. A. Hurlburt, recognizing the application of the previous year as admitted by Dr. Ryerson, and as understood by the Conference. The amendment was passed by an immense majority, only 23 out of 150 members present voting against it.
FOOTNOTES:
[143] Dr. Ryerson left Toronto for Quebec immediately after Conference, to confer with the Government there on matters connected with his Department. While there he wrote to me a private letter as follows:--
At Mr. Attorney-General Macdonald's suggestion I have been appointed Honorary Commissioner at the Paris exhibition. Mr. Macdonald also endorsed my recommendation for your appointment as Deputy Superintendent with an increased salary. His Excellency appointed you yesterday according to my recommendation, and you will be gazetted on Saturday....
Sir Edmund Head has given me very flattering letters of introduction to Lord Clarendon and Lord John Russell.... I leave here for Boston on my way to England.... I have no doubt but that you will do all things in the best manner, and for the best. I fervently pray Almighty God greatly to prosper you, as well as guide and bless you in your official duties.
[144] The antagonism between Mr. Spencer (now Editor of the _Guardian_) and Dr. Ryerson was of long standing. Thirteen years before the date of this attack upon Dr. Ryerson, Mr. Spencer was proposed, in 1842, as a candidate for a Mastership in Victoria College. Dr. Ryerson advised him to attend the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Conn., so as to fit himself for the post. He did so. But the Board of Victoria College refused to appoint him. He was very indignant, and so expressed himself to Dr. Ryerson. He afterwards wrote to him a letter (in 1842) as follows:--You were no doubt surprised at the remarks I made to you, and perhaps you thought they were unnecessarily harsh and severe, and made under the momentary impulse of excited feelings. If so, you are mistaken. I spoke deliberately, though strongly. You know the circumstances under which, at your request, I went to the College, and that the situation, though congenial to my feelings, was not sought for by me. Of the decision of the members of the Board, to give the Principal permission to employ me part of the year, I express my decided disapprobation. Now, Sir, I consider such a resolution a downright insult. Had I come before that Board as a stranger, or under the character of a mercenary hireling, and one concerning whose qualifications you were entirely ignorant, then there would have been some appearance of propriety in making such a proposition, as a safeguard, and against imposition. But I am a member of that Conference under whose direction the affairs of that institution are placed; its interests are closely connected with those of the Church of which I am now, and expect to remain, a member. I believed I could render greater service to the Church in labouring to promote the prosperity of that institution. I trust I have yet too much of public spirit, and too ardent a desire for the prosperity of our College, to wish to remain there if my labours were not conducive to its efficiency. But what is the spirit of that resolution? "Why, we wish to get rid of you, and the easiest way to do it is, to employ you for a specified time, and then we can dismiss you with propriety. But the absurdity of that resolution is its most prominent feature. I intend, at the first opportunity, to express my mind more fully to you personally upon this subject." In one of his letters in this controversy, Dr. Ryerson thus refers to this Victoria College episode. He says: In regard to Mr. Spencer, I am aware of his feelings toward me during these many years; ever since he failed to procure an appointment to the Chair of Chemistry and Natural Philosophy in Victoria College, for which he had devoted a year of special preparation. I believe he has attributed his disappointment to me, and that I had not acted toward him in a brotherly way, in not securing his appointment, as he supposed I could have done from my connection with the College. The fact was, I recommended his appointment, at least for a trial, but my recommendation was not concurred in by any other member of the Board, as Dr. Green and others know.
[145] Dr. Ryerson, in his speech at the Brockville Conference, referring to this omission, said:--The Conference passed a resolution complimentary and affectionate towards myself, and expressive of its high sense of my long services in defending the rights and advocating the interests of the Connexion. The copy of that resolution has never been communicated to me to this day; Mr. Spencer suppressed the publication of it in the _Guardian_, and thus defeated the noble and generous intentions of the great majority of the Conference in regard to myself.
[146] To this proceeding, Dr. Ryerson also referred in his speech as follows:--How did my opponents bring up their charge against me? Did they inform the defendant of the approaching ordeal, and secure his presence in an ecclesiastical court prior to his attempted execution?
No, Sir; the defendant obeys the call of duty, at personal sacrifice, to attend to a meeting of the senate and annual public exercises of the students of Victoria College; and, while absent, these professed advocates of Methodistic rule, arraign him without notice, and seek to get a resolution passed against him. Is that Methodism? Is that old Methodism? If these, my assailants, believe, as they say, that the interests of the Church will be greatly promoted by my expulsion, then let them do it on Methodistic principles. Now, although I was well aware that they were opposed to me personally, yet I thought, though I was absent from the district meeting, they would treat me, at least, honourably. If I had done wrong, let them accuse me--give me a specific charge and due notice of trial, and let me prepare for my defence. This would be the manly course--this would be Methodism; and if I had committed no offence, if no charge could be brought against me, why seek to exclude me from this body without a charge and without a crime? Is not this course opposed to all proceedings of civil and ecclesiastical tribunals, and to every principle of civil and religious liberty--to true Protestant freedom and to genuine Methodism, whether new or old?