Chapter XIX

1837-1839.

Return to Canada.--The Chapel Property Cases.

In this part of the "Story" of his life, Dr. Ryerson has only left the following sentence:--At the Conference held after my return to Canada, in June, I declined re-election as Editor of the _Christian Guardian_, having promised my Kingston brethren, from whom I had been suddenly removed in November, 1835, that I would remain with them at least one year on my return from England.

After Conference, Dr. Ryerson (with Rev. E. Healy) attended as a deputation to the Black River Conference. He said:--

The Conference was presided over by Bishop Hedding, who, in strong
and affecting language, expressed his feelings of respect and love
for our Connexion in Canada. In reply, I reiterated the expression
of our profound respect and affection for our honoured friend and
father in the Gospel; by the imposition of whose hands, I, and
several other brethren in Canada, have been set apart to the Holy
Ministry. After my return to Kingston, brother Healy and I received
from the Black River Conference a complimentary resolution in
regard to our visit. In enclosing it to me, Rev. Jesse T. Peck, the
Secretary [afterwards Bishop], said:--Allow me humbly, but
earnestly, to beg a continuance of that friendship with you, which
in its commencement has afforded me so much pleasure.

In August of this year, 1837, the celebrated trial of the Waterloo Chapel case[50] took place before Mr. Justice Macaulay, at the Kingston Assizes, and a verdict was given against the Wesleyan Methodists. It was subsequently appealed to the Court of King's Bench, at Toronto. Three elaborate judgments were delivered on the case. Rev. John Ryerson was a good deal exercised as to the ill effects, upon the connexional church property, of Judge Macaulay's adverse decision. In a letter to Dr. Ryerson, he said:--

We are much troubled and perplexed, here in Toronto, about the
Waterloo Chapel case. I saw the Attorney-General on the subject
to-day. When Judge Macaulay's judgment is published, I hope you
will carefully review the whole matter, and lay the thing before
the public in such a way as to produce conviction. Everybody is
inquiring whether or not you will take up the subject.

An appeal was made to the King's Bench at Toronto. This Court--

Set aside the verdict of the lower Court, and ordered a new
trial.... At this second trial, as also that respecting the
Belleville Church property case, [November, 1837], ... the whole
matter was "ventilated," and the result was that the legal decision
of the highest judicial tribunal of the land confirmed the Wesleyan
Methodist Church as the rightful owner of the Church property, it
being the true representative and successor of the original
Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada. These litigations extended
over more than two years, and the friends of Zion and of peace
greatly rejoiced when they were brought to a just and final
settlement. (Epochs of Canadian Methodism, pages 278, 279.)

In regard to these three judgments on the case, Dr. Ryerson said:--

During the latter part of this month I have devoted such time as I
could spare to a lengthened review for the _Guardian_, of the
elaborate judgments of Chief Justice Robinson, and Justices
Macaulay and Sherwood, on the Waterloo Chapel case.[51] The opinion
of the Chief Justice displays profound research, acute
discrimination, and sound judgment. The opinion of Mr. Justice
Macaulay indicates great labour and strict religious scrupulosity.
The opinion of Mr. Justice Sherwood betrays great want of
acquaintance with the discipline, usages, and general history of
Methodism. To the Methodist Connexion the conflict of opinion and
confusion of reasoning of these learned judges are most prejudicial
and disastrous. I have therefore sought, in the "review," to set
forth the true facts of this abstruse case--facts connected with
the history of Methodism--facts, with the most material of which I
am personally acquainted, and in the progress of which I have been
called to act a conspicuous part.

In regard to this "review," Rev. E. Healy wrote to Dr. Ryerson, from Brockville, and said:--

I have read your review of the opinion of the judges, and am happy
to see it. What the judges will do with you, I do not know. You are
considered, I believe, by some in this part of the country, as part
man and part demon. This is one reason, doubtless, why I am also so
bad a man, as I have said so much in your favour.

Rev. Hannibal Mulkins,[52] writing from Whitby on this subject, said:--

The agitation which was anticipated by some of the preachers at the
last Conference, and which has existed in some degree has happily
subsided, notwithstanding the most vigorous efforts have been made,
and all the arts of calumny and misrepresentation, employed to
harrass, to worry, and devour.

I was very glad to see your "review" of the opinions of the Judges
in the Chapel case. I have read it with much satisfaction. On this
circuit, notwithstanding the prejudices of some individuals, it has
been perused with general delight, and to our friends in particular
it has been highly satisfactory.

Dr. Ryerson, in a letter from New York, dated November, 1837, says:--

I have just returned from an extended tour of about 500 miles in
the Middle and Southern States, in order to obtain information and
evidence relative to the organization of the Methodist Church in
America, the character of its Episcopacy, and the powers of the
General Conference--points which involve the issue of our chapel
property case. From the mass of testimony and information I have
been able to collect, by seeing every preacher in this continent
who was in the work in 1784, relative to the character of Methodist
Episcopacy, and the powers of the General Conference, I feel no
doubt as to the result.[53]

Rev. Joseph Stinson, in making his report on the same subject, said:--

I spent a whole day with Bishop Hedding, and had much conversation
with him about our affairs generally. He told me that the American
Methodist Church had never regarded Episcopacy as a Divine
ordinance--nor as an essential doctrine of the Church--but as an
expedient form of ecclesiastical government, which could be
modified by the General Conference, or even dispensed with without
violating the great principles of Methodism. The Bishop is of the
opinion, however, that if our Courts decide against us, we shall
have to return to Episcopacy, and that the first Bishop should be
ordained by the Bishops of the American Church.

Dr. Ryerson, in the same November letter, says:--

I have also accompanied Mr. Stinson to render him what assistance I
could, in examining Manual Labour Schools, with a view to
establishing one for the benefit of our Indian youth--an object of
the very greatest importance, both to the religious and civil
interests of our aboriginal fellow countrymen. Also to get from the
New York Missionary Board a sum of money for the Indian work which
was expected from them before our Union with the English
Conference.

In a letter to Dr. Alder, written from New York in the same month, Dr. Ryerson said:--

The concern of our preachers and friends on the Chapel case is deep
and truly affecting. As I took so responsible a part in the Union,
I cannot describe my feelings on this question. At the request of
our brethren I have undertaken to do what I could to secure our
Church property from the party claiming it. I have travelled nearly
500 miles this week for that purpose. But it is cheering amidst all
our difficulties, and the commotions of the political elements,
that our preachers, I believe, without exception, are of one
heart--that our societies are in peace--that the work of our
blessed Lord is reviving in many of the circuits, although the
cause in Kingston suffers, and my dear brethren there complain, in
consequence of my connexional engagements and absence from them.

FOOTNOTES:

[50] Between the Episcopal and Wesleyan Methodists for the possession of the Church property. Waterloo was four miles north of Kingston.

[51] The Review is inserted in the _Guardian_, vol. viii., pages 169-178. The Belleville case was published in pamphlet form.

[52] This gentleman entered the Wesleyan ministry in 1835, but joined the Church of England in 1840. He was for many years Chaplain to the Penitentiary, at Kingston, and always retained a warm regard for Dr. Ryerson. He died in 1877, aged 65 years.

[53] The particulars here referred to are given in detail in the "Epochs of Canadian Methodism," pages 279-281.