"The story of my life"

by Egerton Ryerson

It was clear to my mind at the time that the Editor took an unfair advantage of Dr. Ryerson's absence from the country to injure (as he supposed) his brother in the ministry. In this he was mistaken; and, in his chagrin, he attacked me personally in the Guardian for my zeal on behalf of Dr. Ryerson. Events proved that my interposition was opportune and just; and that, had I not done so, the Methodist people would have been improperly and cruelly misled, and irreparable injustice would have been done to the character and motives of a noble and generous man, who, in this instance, ought not to have been held responsible for the utterances of warm hearts, but of possibly indiscreet tongues.

I speak advisedly when I say that I understood perfectly well the two men with whom I had to deal. Rev. James Spencer was well known to me, when I was a student at Victoria College forty years ago. He was a good man, no doubt; but no student at that College ever thought of comparing him with the Principal of the College. How he ever got to be Editor of the Guardian was always a mystery to me. I never had the slightest difference with him—quite the reverse; but no comparison could be instituted between James Spencer and Egerton Ryerson.

In this matter I had no personal feeling. Both men were Methodists, while I am an Episcopalian, and both have gone to their final account. Moreover, the question was not one of doctrine, or of denominational preference. It was one of simple justice and fair play between man and man. Hence, I took the earliest opportunity of apprising Dr. Ryerson of the unjust and anomalous position in which he had been placed by the Editor of the Guardian.

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.