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:--
The Methodist preachers do not value themselves upon the wealth, virtues, or grandeur, of their ancestry; nor do they consider their former occupation an argument against their present employment or usefulness. They have learned that the Apostles were once fishermen; that a Milner could once throw the shuttle; that a Newton once watched his mother's flock.... They are likewise charged with "preaching the Gospel out of idleness." Does the Archdeacon claim the attribute of omniscience? Does he know what is in man? How does he know that they preach "the Gospel out of idleness?" ... What does he call idleness?--the reading of one or two dry discourses every Sabbath ... to one congregation, with an annual income of £200 or £300?... No; this is hard labour; this is indefatigable industry!... Who are they then that preach the Gospel out of idleness?--those indolent, covetous men who travel from two to three hundred miles, and preach from twenty-five to forty times every month?--who, in addition to this, visit from house to house, and teach young and old repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ?--those who continue this labour year after year ... at the enormous salary of £25 or £50 per annum?--these are the men who "preach the Gospel out of idleness!" O bigotry! thou parent of persecution; O envy! thou fountain of slander; O covetousness! thou god of injustice! would to heaven ye were banished from the earth![36]
_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:--
To _Belles Lettres_ I have no pretensions; Moral Philosophy I have studied, and think it a most important department, when kept upon its true principles, both theological and philosophic. Being, however, fifty years old, and having a feeble constitution, I do not think it would be prudent in me to accept.