clergy reserves, it is needless for me to enter. They are sufficiently
stated in the Address of the Legislative Assembly of Canada to the
Queen, a copy of which is herewith annexed, together with the majorities
by which each of the thirty-one clauses of the Address was separately
voted. It will be seen that the first twenty-three clauses of the
Address were carried by a majority of 52 to 18; the 24th clause by 51 to
20; the 26th clause by 48 to 19; the 27th and 28th clauses by 47 to 20;
the 29th clause by 36 to 34; the 30th clause by 40 to 28; the 31st
clause, containing the prayer of the Address, by 45 to 23. The only
clause of the Address, therefore, in favour of which the majority of the
Assembly was not large and decided, was the 29th; and in a vote to that
clause, I have shown that the smallness of the majority was occasioned
by objections to different parts of the clause upon quite opposite
grounds, of three classes of members--the sixteen supporters of the
present pre-eminence of the Churches of England and Scotland, a section
of the Roman Catholic members, and what in England would be called the
extreme dissenters. In the vote referred to, I have explained the ground
of the opposition to this clause by each of these three classes of
members. It will be seen that the 29th clause is rather speculative than
practical, and does not affect the character and completeness of the
Address, every other clause of which was carried by a large majority. It
is, however, curious to remark, that while the supporters of the present
exclusive privileges of the Churches of England and Scotland are
indebted to the assistance of Roman Catholic members for the only vote
in which the minority was large; yet in England some of these same
parties represent the Address as having been carried chiefly by Roman
Catholic votes, with a view of destroying all Protestant institutions in
Canada.
7. No enlightened and candid person can look at the religious history
and social state of Canada and desire the perpetuation of the Imperial
Act 3 and 4 Vic., ch. 78. It is now quite sixty years since Upper Canada
was formed into a province with a representative government. Its
population was then 7,000 souls; it is now about 700,000. During the
first and most eventful half of that sixty years, the ministrations of
the Churches of England and Scotland can scarcely be said to have had an
existence there. The present Bishop of Toronto, in a discourse published
on the occasion of the death of the first Canadian Bishop of the Church
of England, states that down to the close of the war between Great
Britain and the United States in 1815, there were but four resident
clergymen or missionaries of the Church of England in all Upper
Canada--a statement which is confirmed by the annual reports of the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts; and the same
reports will show how few were the clergy of the Church of England in
that province down to a recent period. We learn from the same authority,
that till 1818 there was but one clergyman of the Church of Scotland in
Upper Canada, and that in 1827 there were but two. It is, therefore,
clear that during the first half of its sixty years' existence as a
province, Upper Canada must have been indebted almost entirely to other
than clergy of the Churches of England and Scotland for religious
instruction; yet during that thirty years, it is admitted that the
people of Upper Canada were a religious, an intelligent, and loyal
people. To whom the people of that province were mainly indebted for
their religious instruction, and for the formation and development of
their religious character, appears in a report of a Select Committee of
the Upper Canada House of Assembly, appointed in 1828, on the religious
condition of the country, and before which fifty witnesses, chiefly
members of the Church of England, were examined. I quote the following
words from the report of that Committee, (which was adopted by the
Assembly by a majority of 22 to 8), a report which was partly prepared
in reference to a letter addressed by the present Bishop of Toronto to
His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1827:--
The insinuations (says the report) in the letter against the
Methodist clergymen, the committee have noticed with peculiar
regret. To the disinterested and indefatigable exertions of these
pious men this province owes much. At an early period of its
history, when it was thinly settled, and destitute of all other
means of religious instruction, these ministers of the Gospel,
animated by Christian zeal and benevolence, at the sacrifice of
health, and interest, and comfort, carried among the people the
blessings, and consolations, and sanctions of our holy religion.
Their influence and instruction have been conducive in a degree
which cannot be easily estimated, to the reformation of the vicious
and to the diffusion of correct morals, the foundation of all sound
loyalty and social order.
This religious body has now 180 regular ministers in Upper Canada, about
1,100 churches and preaching places, and embraces in its congregations
one-seventh of the population.[137] Yet this oldest religious community
in Upper Canada, together with the Free Presbyterian Church of Canada,
the United Presbyterian Church, the Baptists and Congregationalists, are
treated as nobody by the Imperial Act, while the more modern Churches of
England and Scotland are exclusively endowed, and that by setting aside
legislative rights which the Constitution of 1791 had conferred upon the
people of Upper Canada! In Great Britain the Established Churches are
associated with the early and brightest periods of British history, and
are blended with all the influences which distinguish and exalt British
character; but the feelings and predilections arising from such
reminiscences and associations are not the proper rule of judgment as to
the feelings, predilections and institutions of Canadian society. As
Englishmen best know their own feelings and wants, and claim and
exercise the sole right of judging and legislating for themselves; so do
the people of Canada best know their own wishes and interests, and ought
to judge and legislate for themselves in all local matters which do not
infringe any imperial prerogative. No Englishman can refuse this who
wishes to do to others as he would have others do to him.
8. But it should also be observed, that down to the passing of the
Imperial Act of 1840, the influence of the Church of Scotland itself was
adverse to any such act of partiality and injustice, and in favour of
applying the proceeds of the clergy reserves even to educational as well
as religious purposes. The discussion of this question was first
introduced into the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada in 1823, by the
Hon. William Morris--a gentleman of great respectability, and who has
always been regarded and acknowledged as the guardian of the interests,
and representative of the sentiments, of the Church of Scotland.
December 22nd, 1826, Mr. Morris moved a series of resolutions on this
subject, of which the following are the 9th and 10th:--
9. _Resolved_,--That it is the opinion of a great proportion of the
people of this Province that the clergy lands, in place of being
enjoyed by the clergy of an inconsiderable part of the population,
ought to be disposed of, and the proceeds of their sale applied to
increase the provincial allowance for the support of district and
common schools, and the endowment of a provincial seminary for
learning, and in aid of erecting places of public worship for all
denominations of Christians. [Carried by a majority of 31 to 2.]
10. _Resolved_, That it is expedient to pass a Bill, authorizing
the sale of the clergy lands within this Province, for the purposes
set forth in the foregoing resolution; and to address His Majesty,
humbly soliciting that he will be graciously pleased to give the
royal assent to said Bill. [Carried by a majority of 30 to 3.]
On the 28th of the same month, Mr. Morris reported a draft of Bill for
the sale of the clergy reserves, pursuant to the foregoing resolutions.
The Bill passed the Assembly by a majority of 20 to 3; was sent to the
Legislative Council, and was rejected. Similar attempts to legislate
having in like manner and from the same cause proved abortive, another
address to the King on this subject was adopted by the Assembly in
March, 1831, and supported, if not introduced, by Mr. Morris. That
address, which was adopted by a majority of 30 to 7, contains the
following words:--
That a large majority of the inhabitants of this Province are
sincerely attached to your Majesty's person and government, but are
averse to any exclusive or dominant Church. That this House feels
confident that, to promote the prosperity of this portion of your
Majesty's dominions, and to satisfy the earnest desire of the
people of this Province, your Majesty will be graciously pleased to
give the most favourable consideration to the wishes of your
faithful subjects. That, to terminate the jealousy and dissension
which have hitherto existed on the subject of the said clergy
reserves--to remove a barrier to the settlement of the country, and
to provide a fund available for the promotion of education, and in
aid of erecting places of worship for various denominations of
Christians: it is extremely desirable that the said land reserved
should be sold, and the proceeds arising from the sale of the same
placed at the disposal of the Provincial Legislature, to be applied
exclusively for those purposes.
This address was replied to the January following, 1832, by a formal
message from the King, from which I extract the following sentences:--
The representations which have at different times been made to His
Majesty and his Royal predecessors of the prejudice sustained by
his faithful subjects in Upper Canada, from the appropriation of
the clergy reserves, have engaged His Majesty's most attentive
consideration.... It has, therefore, been with peculiar
satisfaction that, in his inquiries into this subject, His Majesty
has found that the changes sought for by so large a portion of the
inhabitants of Upper Canada, may be carried into effect without
sacrificing the just claims of the established Churches of England
and Scotland.... His Majesty, therefore, invites the House of
Assembly of Upper Canada to consider how the powers given the
Provincial Legislature by the Constitutional Act to vary or repeal
this part of its provisions, can be called into exercise most
advantageously, for the spiritual and temporal interests of His
Majesty's faithful subjects in the Province.
It will be seen that the Address to the Crown and reply, above quoted,
contemplated the application of no part of the proceeds of the clergy
lands for the support of the clergy of any religious persuasion, but the
application of the whole to the promotion of education, and in aid of
erecting places of worship. I do not make these references to advocate
this view of the question, but to show that the Crown has long since
assented to the alienation of the whole of the proceeds of the reserves
from the support of the clergy of any Church, should the Canadian
Legislature think proper to do so, and that the Church of Scotland in
Upper Canada agreed with the other religious persuasions, and the great
majority of the Canadian people, in the advocacy of such an alienation
of said reserves. The same parties cannot now object on constitutional
and moral grounds to what they heretofore advocated on those same
grounds.
9. It has, however, been alleged that the people of Canada have
acquiesced in the provisions of the Imperial Act, and are satisfied with
it. At the time of passing the Imperial Act, in 1840, and down to within
the last two years, the discussion of questions relating to the
organization and system of government itself occupied the attention of
the public mind in Canada; but no sooner was the public mind set at rest
on those paramount and fundamental questions, than the Canadian people
demanded the restoration of their rights on the question of the clergy
reserves. What they have felt for two years, and often and strongly
spoken, through the local press and at the hustings, they now speak in
the ears of the Sovereign of the Imperial Parliament. That there must be
deep and general dissatisfaction in Canada on this subject, will appear
from the following circumstances: (1) The Imperial Act infringes the
rights, and contravenes the wishes of the Canadian people; (2) It
inflicts an injustice and wrong upon the great majority of the religious
persuasions in that country, where the "convictions of nine-tenths" or
rather ninety-nine one-hundredths, of the inhabitants are in favour of
"equal rights upon equal conditions," among all classes and persuasions;
(3) The Legislative Assembly, by a majority of 51 to 20, declare that
the Imperial Act, "so far from settling this long agitated question, has
left it to be the subject of renewed and increased public discontent;"
(4) The comparative silence of the Wesleyan body--the oldest, the most
numerous, and the most unjustly treated, of all the excluded
denominations--is expressive and ominous. Its representatives, having
proceeded to England in 1840, remonstrated against this Bill, then
before Parliament; they sought the assent of Her Majesty's Secretary of
State for the Colonies to be heard at the Bar of the House of Commons
against it, and having been refused, they presented to him, July 27th,
1840, a most earnest remonstrance against the Bill. On the Bill becoming
law, they silently submitted, and on grounds which were explained, a few
months since, by the official organ of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in
Canada, in the following words:--
On Lord John Russell's Bill becoming a law, the question was
changed from a denominational to a Provincial one--from an
ecclesiastical to a constitutional one. It was no longer a question
between one denomination and another, but a question between Upper
Canada and the Imperial Parliament. As Canadians, and acting in
behalf of a large section of the Canadian community, the
representatives of the Wesleyan Methodist Church expressed their
convictions, their feelings, and their apprehensions to Her
Majesty's Government while the question was pending before
Parliament; but when the execrable Bill became an Imperial Law, it
was as much out of place for them as clergymen, or of any religious
persuasion to strive to fulfil their own predictions, or set on
foot a Colonial civil contest, as it would have been pusillanimous
in them not to have remonstrated before the consummation of such an
act of wrong against the people of Upper Canada. The question is
now being taken up in the right place, and, we trust, in the right
spirit.
10. Under such circumstances it is impossible that the question can long
remain in its present state, and it is for the Imperial Parliament to
say what shall be done. It is admitted upon all hands that the members
of the Churches of England and Scotland in Canada are more wealthy in
proportion to their numbers, and, therefore, less needful of extraneous
aid than the members of any other religious persuasion; and in
proportion to their numbers and wealth will be their comparative
influence and advantages in the proceedings of their own Legislature. It
is a grave question, whether the Imperial Parliament will place itself
in an attitude of hostility to the Legislative Assembly and people of
Canada for the sake of conferring questionable pecuniary distinctions
upon the clergy of the two most wealthy denominations in that country?
Should any members of Parliament be disposed to pursue this course, and
hazard this experiment, I beg them to pause and consider the following
questions:--
(1) Can the real interests of the Churches of England and Scotland
themselves be advanced by occupying a position of antagonism to the
acknowledged equal rights of the great majority of the people of Canada?
And is it desirable that these Churches should be the instruments and
emblems of wrong to a country, rather than natural and powerful agencies
of its unity, advancement, and happiness? Interested parties in Canada
may not be able to see this, but British and Christian statesmen ought
not to overlook it.
(2) Ought the members of the Churches of England and Scotland, who take
a part in public affairs in Canada, and who may be candidates for
popular power, to be placed in circumstances in which they must either
war against the position and authorities of their own Church, or war
against all other religious persuasions, or retire from public life
altogether?
(3) What will be the natural, or apparently inevitable, result of thus
singling out two classes of Canadian people, and distinguishing them
from all others by pecuniary endowments, and sustaining them in that
position, not by the free Legislature of their own country--not by the
original principles of their constitution of government to which Canada
may have pledged itself--but by a recent Imperial Act, to the preparing
or provisions of which the Canadians were no parties, and against which
they protest? Is it likely that the will or predilections of a
transatlantic House of Lords, so largely composed of and influenced by
one class of ecclesiastical dignitaries, can long determine the mutual
relations of religious persuasions in a country constituted as Canada
is, and bordering on the northern free Anglo-States of America? What the
Canadians ask they ask on grounds originally guaranteed to them by their
constitution; and if they are compelled to make a choice between British
connection and British constitutional rights, it is natural that they
should prefer the latter to the former? It is also to be noted that the
Imperial Act in question has to be administered through the local
Canadian administration. Such is the machinery of the Act. The revenue
that it appropriates is Canadian, and it is worked through Canadian
agency--through Canadian heads of departments, responsible to the
representatives of the people of Canada. Should the Canadian people,
then, find that their respectful and earnest appeal to the Imperial
Parliament, through the Sovereign, is in vain, they will naturally look
to their own resources and elect representatives at the ensuing general
elections who will pledge themselves to oppose the administration of the
Imperial Act--representatives who will support no Inspector or
Receiver-General that will be responsible for the payment of even any
warrant for moneys under such Act. The consequence must soon be, not
only injury to existing incumbents whom the Canadian Assembly now
propose to secure, but collision between the Government and the
Legislative Assembly, and ultimately between the latter and the Imperial
authorities; and finally, either the establishment of military
government in Canada (an impossibility), or the severance of that great
country from Great Britain. On the other hand, if the reasonable demand
and constitutional rights of the people of Canada be regarded in this
question, I believe Canada will remain freely and cordially connected
with the Mother Country for many years, if not generations, to come. I
will conclude these observations in the expressive words of Lord
Stanley, to the spirit of which I hope every British statesman will
respond. On the 2nd of May, 1828, in a speech on this subject, Lord
Stanley expressed himself in the following terms:--
That if any exclusive privileges be given to the Church of England,
not only will the measure be repugnant to every principle of sound
legislation, but contrary to the spirit and intention of the Act of
1791, under which the reserves were made for the Protestant clergy.
I will not enter further into it at present, except to express my
hope that the House will guard Canada against the evils which
religious dissensions have already produced in this country and in
Ireland, where we have examples to teach us what to shun. We have
seen the evil consequences of this system at home. God forbid we
should not profit by experience; and more especially in legislating
for a people bordering on a country where religious intolerance and
religious exclusions are unknown--a country to which Parliament
looked in passing the Act of 1791, as all the great men who argued
the question then expressly declared. It is important that His
Majesty's Canadian subjects should not have occasion to look across
the narrow boundary that separates them from the United States, to
see anything there to envy.
FOOTNOTES:
[137] Since the foregoing was written, it has been ascertained that the
Wesleyan Methodists number 142,000, or more than one-fifth of the entire
population (1850).
[Illustration]
CHAPTER LIV.
1854-1855.
Resignation on the Class-Meeting Question.--Discussion.
The last important connexional discussion in which Dr. Ryerson was
engaged was on the Class-Meeting Question. For years he had objected,
chiefly privately, amongst his brethren, clerical and lay, to making
attendance at class-meeting a condition of membership in the Wesleyan
Methodist Church of Canada. For various reasons, few members of the
Conference desired to have the subject publicly discussed in Conference.
They felt that a serious practical difficulty surrounded the question
itself--difficulties which could not be surmounted by public discussion.
Many of them also knew that in calmly discussing, without personal
feeling, the abstract principle involved in the rule, it would be found
that their judgment and loyal feeling to the Church would go one way,
while their uniform practice in the administration of the rule would
often be at variance with both, owing to peculiar circumstances. On the
other hand, Dr. Ryerson thought, that not only should preaching and
practice in this matter agree, but that theory and practice should also
agree. And hence he felt that as his preaching and practice agreed in
opposition to the rule, he was not loyal to the Church in ministering at
her altars, while he was heartily and conscientiously opposed to the
fundamental rule of membership prescribed by that Church. Hence, on the
2nd of January, 1854, he addressed the following letter to the Rev. Dr.
Wood, President of the Wesleyan Methodist Conference (I omit extraneous
matter):--
I hereby resign into your hands, my membership in the Conference, and my
office as a minister of the Wesleyan Methodist Church--herewith
enclosing my parchments of ordination, thus taking my place among the
laity of the Church.
I have resolved to take this step after long and serious deliberation,
but without consulting any human being. I take this step, not because I
do not believe that the Wesleyan ministry is as fully authorized as the
ministry of any other branch of the universal Church, to exercise all
the functions of Christian priesthood; not because I do not as
unfeignedly as ever subscribe to all the doctrines of the Wesleyan
Church; not because I do not profoundly honour the integrity and
devotedness of the Wesleyan ministry; not because I do not think that
Christian discipline is as strictly, if not more strictly, maintained in
the Wesleyan Church than in any other Christian Church in the world.
But I resign (not my connection with, but) my ministerial office in the
Wesleyan Church, because I believe a condition of membership is exacted
in it which has no warrant in Scripture, nor in the practice of the
primitive Church, nor in the writings of Mr. Wesley; and in consequence
of which condition, great numbers of exemplary heads of families and
young people are excluded from all recognition and rights of membership
in the Church. I refer to attendance upon class-meeting--without
attendance at which no person is acknowledged as a member of the
Wesleyan Methodist Church, however sincerely and cordially he may
believe her doctrines, prefer her ministry, and support her
institutions, and however exemplary he may be in his life.
I believe the class-meetings, as well as love-feasts, have been and are
a means of immense good in the Wesleyan Church, and that both should be
employed and recommended as prudential and useful, means of religious
edification to all who may be willing to avail themselves of them. But
attendance at love-feast is known to be voluntary and not to be a
condition of membership in the Church; so I think that attendance at
class-meeting should also be voluntary, and ought not to be exalted into
an indispensable condition of membership in the Church; I am persuaded
that every person who believes the doctrines, and observes the precepts
and ordinances enjoined by our Lord and His Apostles, is eligible to
membership in the Church of Christ, and cannot, on Scriptural or
Wesleyan grounds, be excluded from its rights and privileges upon the
mere ground of his or her being unable to reconcile it to their views to
take a part in the conversations of class-meetings.
The views thus stated, I have entertained many years. After having
revolved the subject in my mind for some time, I expressed my views on
it in 1840 and 1841.... But since my more direct connection with the
youth of the country at large, and having met with numbers of exemplary
persons who prefer the Methodist Church to any other, but are excluded
from it by the required condition of attending class-meeting, besides
thousands of young people of Wesleyan parents and congregations, I have
become more deeply than ever impressed with the importance of the
question, to which I referred in remarks made at the last and preceding
Conferences. I had intended until within a short time to defer any
decision on the step I now take until the next annual Conference, and
until after bringing the question in the form of distinct propositions
before the Conference; but, after the best consideration in my power, I
have thought it advisable to resign my office in the Church at the
present time--fearing the revival and results of unpleasantnesses from
my bringing the question formally before the Conference, ... and from a
deep conviction that I should no longer delay taking the most effectual
means in my power to draw the attention of the ministry and members of
the Wesleyan Church to this anomaly in her Disciplinary regulations, and
secure, if possible, to tens of thousands of persons the rights and
privileges of membership in that branch of the Church of Christ which
they prefer--rights and privileges to which I am persuaded they are
justly entitled upon both Scriptural and Wesleyan grounds.
I do not think it is honest or right for a man to hold the office of a
minister in a Church, all whose essential regulations, as well as
doctrines, he cannot justify and recommend. I say essential regulations;
for there may be many regulations and practices in a Church of which a
minister may not approve, and the existence of which he may deplore, but
which would not prevent him from maintaining, as usual, his relations
and course of labour. An enlightened Christian mind can and will,
without any compromise of principle, allow a wide latitude in modes of
proceeding, and in matters of opinion, taste, and prudence. But a
regulation which determines who shall and who shall not be recognized as
members of the Church of Christ, involves a vital question, the
importance of which cannot be overrated, and which must be determined by
Divine Revelation, and not by mere conventional rules.
Now, while as an individual I may value and wish to attend, as far as
possible, all prudential as well as instituted means of grace in our
Church, I cannot as a teacher, by word or office, declare that all
persons who will not attend class-meetings, in addition to observing all
the ordinances of Christ, should be rejected and excluded from the
Christian Church. I cannot say so--I cannot think so--I cannot believe
it Scriptural or right, in respect to great numbers of estimable
persons, and of the sons and daughters of our people, who believe
Wesleyan doctrines, who respect and love the Wesleyan ministry, support
Wesleyan institutions, are exemplary in their lives, and who wish to be
members of the Wesleyan Church, but who, from education, or mental
constitution, or other circumstances, cannot face much less enjoy, the
developments and peculiarities of the class-meeting. I have met and
sympathized with many who have sought to reconcile their views and
feelings to the personal speakings and communications of class-meetings,
but who could not succeed; and not being allowed otherwise to enjoy the
privileges of membership in the Wesleyan Church, were driven to seek
admission into some other Christian communion.
Our Lord and His Apostles have prescribed no form of religious communion
but the Lord's Supper. The New Testament meetings of Christian
fellowship, in which the early Christians edified one another, are
appropriately adduced as the exemplars of Wesleyan love-feasts--that
voluntary and useful means of religious edification. But it is
remarkable that a person may neither attend love-feast nor the Lord's
Supper, and yet retain his membership in the Wesleyan Church, while he
is excluded from it if he does not attend class-meeting, though he may
attend both the Lord's Supper and love-feast, as well as the preaching
of the word and meetings for prayer. Nay, I find in the latter part of
the section of our Discipline on "Class Meetings," that the minister in
charge of a circuit is required to exclude all "those members of the
Church who wilfully and repeatedly neglect to meet their class," but to
state at the time of their exclusion, "that they are laid aside for a
breach of our rules of Discipline, and not for immoral conduct." I know
of no Scriptural authority to exclude any person from the Church of
Christ on earth, except for that which would exclude him from the
kingdom of glory, namely, "immoral conduct." But here is an express
requirement for the exclusion of persons from the Wesleyan Church for
that which it is admitted is not "immoral conduct," namely, neglect of
class-meeting. This is certainly going beyond Scriptural authority and
example.
I have said that I do not regard as Wesleyan, or having the sanction of
Mr. Wesley, the making attendance at class-meeting an essential
condition of membership in the Church of Christ. Mr. Wesley declared
that the sole object of his labours was, not to form a new sect, but to
revive religion in the Church and in the nation; that each class was a
voluntary society in the Church, but was no more a separate Church
organization than a Bible Society, or Temperance Society, or Young Men's
Christian Association, is a separate Church organization. Nor did Mr.
Wesley regard the admission of persons into, or exclusion from, any one
of his societies as affecting, in the slightest degree, such person's
Church membership. Nay, Mr. Wesley insisted that all who joined his
societies, in addition to attending class-meeting, and the ministrations
of his preachers, should regularly attend the services and sacraments of
the Church of England. In his sermon "On Attending Church Service," Mr.
Wesley says, "it was one of our original rules, that every member of our
society should attend the church and sacrament, unless he had been bred
among Christians of another denomination." In his Tract, entitled
"Principles of a Methodist Further Explained," (written in reply to the
Rev. Mr. Church,) Mr. Wesley says:--
The United Society was originally so called, because it consisted
of several smaller societies united together. When any member of
these, or of the United Society, are proved to live in known sin,
we then mark and avoid them: we separate ourselves from every one
that walks disorderly. Sometimes if the case be judged infectious
(though rarely) this is decided openly; but this you style
"excommunication," and say, "does not every one see a separate
ecclesiastical communion?"
Mr. Wesley replies:--
No. This society does not separate from the rest of the Church of
England. They continue steadfast with them both in the apostolical
doctrine, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
And in further reply to the charge, that in excluding disorderly persons
from his society, he was usurping a power committed to the higher order
of the clergy, Mr. Wesley says:--
No; not in the power of excluding members from a private society,
unless on the supposition of some such rule as ours is, viz.: "That
if a man separate from the church, he is no longer a member of our
society."
These passages (from scores of similar ones in Mr. Wesley's works), are
sufficient to shew what Mr. Wesley understood and intended by admission
into, or exclusion from, any one of his societies--that it did not in
the least affect the relations of any person to the Church of which he
was a member. Now, the rule which Mr. Wesley imposed as a condition of
membership in a private society in a Church, we impose as a condition of
membership in the Church itself.
It is also worthy of remark, that attendance at class-meeting is not
required of members in the general rules of the society--those very
rules which our ministers are required to give to persons proposing to
join the Wesleyan Church.
In those rules no mention is made of class-meeting, nor is it there
required that each member shall meet the leader, much less meet him in a
class-meeting, in the presence of many others; but that the leader shall
see each person in his class, and meet the minister and stewards once a
week. Yet, by constant and universal practice, we have transferred the
obligation from the leader to the member, and made it the duty of the
latter (on pain of excommunication), to meet the former in
class-meeting; an obligation which is nowhere enjoined in the general
rules. In those rules it is said:
There is only one condition previously required of those who desire
admission into these societies--a desire to flee from the wrath to
come, and to be saved from their sins.
The rules then truly state, that wherever this desire is really fixed in
the soul, it will be known by its fruits. These fruits are briefly but
fully set forth under three heads. (1) By doing no harm. (2) By doing
good. (3) "By attending all the ordinances of God: such as, the public
worship of God; the ministry of the word, either read or expounded; the
Supper of the Lord; family and private prayer; searching the Scriptures,
and fasting or abstinence. These are the general rules of our societies,
all of which we are taught of God to observe, even in His written word,
which is the only rule, and the sufficient rule, both of faith and
practice." Now, neither class-meeting nor love-feast is mentioned among
the "ordinances of God" enumerated in the general rules of the society;
nor is it mentioned in Mr. Wesley's Large Minutes of Conference among
the instituted means of grace. So far as the general rules themselves
are concerned, there is nothing which makes attendance at class-meeting
a condition of membership, even in Mr. Wesley's societies as he
originally instituted them; nor did the idea of holding class-meetings
at all occur to Mr. Wesley until after the general rules were drawn up
and published.[138] But what was not required by the general rules soon
became a condition of membership in another way--this was by the system
of giving tickets. Mr. Wesley says in his Plain Account of People called
Methodists:
As the society increased, I found it required still greater care to
separate the precious from the vile. In order to this, I
determined, at least once in three months, to talk with every
member myself, and to inquire at their own mouth, as well as of
their leaders and neighbours, whether they grew in grace and in the
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. To each of those whose
seriousness and good conversation I had no reason to doubt, I gave
a testimony under my own hand, by writing their name on a ticket
prepared for that purpose. Those who bore these tickets, wherever
they came, were acknowledged by their brethren, and were received
with all cheerfulness. These tickets also supplied us with a quiet
and inoffensive method of removing any disorderly member. He has no
ticket at the quarterly visitation (for so often the tickets are
changed); and hereby it is immediately known that he is no longer
of the community.
It was at length required by a minute of the Conference, (as our own
discipline enjoins,) that a preacher should not give a ticket of
membership to any person who did not meet in class. In our own
Discipline, in the section on class-meetings, will also be found the
following question and answer:--
_Question._--What shall be done with those members of our church
who wilfully and repeatedly neglect their class?
_Answer._--1. Let the chairman, or one of the preachers, visit them
whenever it is practicable, and explain to them the consequence if
they continue to neglect, viz., exclusion.
2. If they do not attend, let him who has charge of the circuit
exclude them (in the church), showing that they are laid aside for
a breach of our rules of discipline, and not for immoral conduct.
By this added ministerial authority and duty, a condition of membership
in the society is imposed which is not contained in the General Rules,
and which subjects a member to exclusion, for that which is acknowledged
to be "not immoral conduct."
This appears a strange regulation in even a private religious society
within a Church; but no objection could be reasonably made to any such
regulation in such a society, if its members desired it, and as it would
not affect their Church membership. But the case is essentially
different, when such society in a Church becomes a Church, and exercises
the authority of admitting into, and excluding from the Church itself,
and not merely a society in the Church.
In England, and especially in the United States and Canada, the Wesleyan
Societies have become a Church. I have repeatedly shewn in past years,
that they have become organized into a Church upon both Wesleyan and
scriptural grounds. I believe the Wesleyan Church in Canada is second to
no other in the scriptural authority of its ministry and organization.
Believing this, I believe that exclusion from the Wesleyan Church
(either by expulsion or refusal of admission) is exclusion from a branch
of the Church of God--is an act the most solemn and eventful in the
history and relations of any human being--an act which should never take
place except upon the clear and express authority of the word of God.
Far be it from me to say one word other than in favour of every kind of
religious exercise and communion which tends to promote the
spiritual-mindedness, brotherly love, and fervent zeal of professing
Christians. That class-meetings (notwithstanding occasional
improprieties and abuses attending them), have been a valuable means in
promoting the spirituality and usefulness of the Wesleyan Church, no one
acquainted with her history can for a moment doubt; and I believe that
myriads on earth and in heaven have, and will ever have, reason for
devout thankfulness and praise for the benefits derived from
class-meetings, as well as from love-feasts and meetings for prayer. But
attendance upon the two latter is voluntary on the part of the members
of the Wesleyan Church; and what authority is there for suspending their
very membership in the Church of God on their attendance upon the
former? The celebration of the Lord's Supper, and not class-meeting, was
the binding characteristic institution upon the members of the primitive
Church. So I am persuaded it should be now; and that Christian faith and
practice alone (and not the addition of attendance upon class-meeting,)
should be the test of worthiness for its communion and privileges.
While, therefore, as an individual I seek to secure and enjoy all the
benefits of the faithful ministrations and scriptural ordinances of the
Wesleyan Church, I cannot occupy a position which in itself, and by its
duties requires me to enforce or justify the imposition of a condition
of membership in the Church of Christ, which I believe is not required
by the Holy Scriptures, and the exclusion of thousands of persons from
Church membership and privileges, to which I believe they have as valid
a right as I have, and that upon the sole ground of their non-attendance
at a meeting, the neglect of which our own Discipline admits, does not
involve "immoral conduct," and which Mr. Wesley himself, in his Plain
Account of the People called Methodists, has declared "to be merely
prudential, not essential, not of divine institution."
It is passing strange, that while the Wesleyan Church is the avowed
"friend of all and enemy of none"--is the most Catholic of any
Protestant body towards other religious communions--she should close the
door of admission into her own fold even to attendance upon
class-meeting. I regard it as the misfortune rather than the dishonour
of the Wesleyan Church, that she repels thousands that seek her
communion rather than relax this term of admission. If her success has
been so great under disadvantages unparalleled, I cannot but believe,
that, with the same divine blessing, and upon a basis of membership less
narrow and more scriptural, the Wesleyan Church, would, beyond all
precedent, increase her usefulness, and enlarge her borders.
I will not permit myself to dwell upon associations and recollections
which cannot be expressed in words, any more than they can be
obliterated from the memory, or effaced from the heart. Though I retire
from councils in the deliberations of which I have been permitted to
take a part during more than twenty-five years, and relinquish all
claims upon funds to which I have contributed for a like period, I
should still deem it my duty and privilege to pray for the success of
the former, and continue my humble contributions to the latter; while I
protest in the most emphatic way in my power against shutting the doors
of the church upon thousands to whom I believe they should be opened,
and against making that essential and divine, which, as Mr. Wesley says,
"is merely prudential, not essential, not of divine institution." I hope
the day is not remote when the Wesleyan Church will be as scriptural in
her every term of membership as she is in her doctrines of grace and
labours of love.
To this letter of resignation, Rev. Dr. Wood, President of the
Conference, replied on the 4th of January:--
To accept the enclosed documents would be assuming a responsibility
at variance with my judgment and affections. If the proposal you
make of withdrawing from the Methodist ministry be ever received,
it must be with the concurrence of the collective Conference; or,
should the question require immediate attention, that of its
executive committee. I shall be glad to see the enactment of any
regulation which will promote the usefulness of our Church to the
benefit of a large and intelligent class of adherents now receiving
no recognition beyond their contributions to our institutions; and
also the adoption of practical measures by which the youth baptized
by Wesleyan ministers may be more personally cared for, and
affiliated to our ordinances. Your distinguished ability and
matured experience eminently qualify you as a safe legislator and
counsellor on such grave questions, which by some cannot be
separated from ancient usages greatly blessed to the growing
spirituality of true believers, without injury to the vital
character of the Church. After so long and useful a career, your
separation from our Conference and work would be a connexional
calamity. You stand among the few in Canada to whom the present
independent and legal position of the Wesleyan Church stands deeply
indebted. Future generations of ministers and people will partake,
imperceptibly to themselves, of the advantages a few of the more
gifted and noble-minded brethren struggled and contended for
against so many obstacles. You are as capable of remedying anything
wrong, or supplying anything wanting within the Church, as you were
many years ago, to overcome impediments to her usefulness without.
Nothing further was done in the matter until at the Belleville
Conference of 1854 Dr. Ryerson moved the following resolution:--
1. That no human authority has a right to impose any condition of
membership in the visible Church of Christ, which is not enjoined
by, or may be concluded from the Holy Scriptures.
2. That the General Rules of the United Societies of the Wesleyan
Methodist Church being formed upon the Holy Scriptures, and
requiring nothing of any member which is not necessary for
admission into the kingdom of grace and glory, ought to be
maintained inviolate as the religious and moral standard of
profession, conduct and character, in regard to all who are
admitted or continued members of our church.
3. That the power, therefore, of expelling persons from the visible
Church of Christ, for other than a cause sufficient to exclude a
person from the kingdom of grace and glory, which the fourth
question, and answers to it, contained in the second section of the
second chapter of our Discipline, confer and enjoin upon our
ministers, is unauthorized by the Holy Scriptures, is inconsistent
with the Scriptural rights of the members of Christ's Church, and
ought not to be assumed or exercised by any minister of our Church.
4. That the anomalous question and answers referred to in the
foregoing resolution, be, and are hereby expunged from our
Discipline and are required to be omitted in printing the next
edition of it. (See page 477.)
These resolutions having been negatived by a considerable majority on
the 12th June, Dr. Ryerson wrote to the President:
The decision of the Conference this afternoon on the scriptural rights
of the members of our Church, and the power of our ministers in respect
to them, makes it at length my painful duty to request you to lay before
the Conference the letter which I addressed to you the 2nd of last
January, and that you will consider that letter as now addressed to the
Conference through you.
I hereby again enclose you my parchments of ordination. I propose to do
all in my power to promote those important measures in regard to the
college and means for the regular training of received candidates for
the ministry which have been recommended by the Conference. I cannot
attempt to add anything more to what is contained in my letter of the
2nd January, expressive of what I feel on the present occasion, except
to say that, although I gave no intimation during the discussion of the
result of the decision on this subject upon my own official relations to
the Conference, I retire from it with feelings of undiminished respect
and affection for my Reverend Brethren, and my earnest prayer for their
welfare and usefulness.
In reply to this letter Dr. Wood said:--
The purpose you aim to accomplish can be effectually secured by a
different resolution to that introduced yesterday; if you will stay
and hear what the brethren may say about the appointment of a large
committee to take up this subject before I lay your resignation
before them, I shall feel much gratified. I again say, I look upon
your proposed withdrawal with deep sorrow, and must say, I cannot
bring myself to believe that on such grounds you can be justified
in taking so serious a step.
Dr. Ryerson did attend the Conference as suggested, after which he wrote
to Dr. Wood:--
I listened with delight and hope to the observations and recommendations
which you made. I anticipated happy results from the appointment of the
very large committee which you nominated, and which might be considered
as representing the sentiments and feelings of the Conference. But from
the lengthened meeting of that committee, in the evening, it was clear
that no disposition existed to modify the power of ministers to expel
persons from the Church for non-attendance at a meeting which, in the
12th section, chap. 1st, page 47, of our own Discipline, taken from the
writings of Mr. Wesley, is declared to be "prudential," even among
Methodists--that thus the highest and most awful penalty that the Church
can inflict--a penalty analagous to capital punishment in the
administration of civil law--is to be executed upon members of the
Church for the omission of what our own Discipline does not exalt to
the rank of a "prudential" means of grace among Christians,--only among
Methodists.
It was also clear that views of baptism prevailed (I cannot say how
widely) at variance with the 17th Article of Faith in our
Discipline,[139] and altogether opposite to those set forth by Mr.
Wesley in his sermons and in his Treatise on Baptism.
But that for which I was not prepared (which I supposed to have been
settled, and which I therefore assumed), was the obviously prevalent
opinion against the Church membership of children baptized by our
ministry. It will be recollected that I had not proposed any other
condition or mode of admitting persons into our Church from without,
than that which already exists amongst us; but I urged in behalf of both
parents and children, the practical recognition of the rights and claims
of children who were admitted and acknowledged as members of the Church
by baptism, as implied in our Form of Baptism, and according to our
Catechism, and according to what the Conference unanimously declared at
Hamilton, in 1853, our Church holds to be among the privileges of
baptized persons,--namely, that "they are made members of the visible
Church of Christ." Persons cannot, of course, be members of the
"visible" Church of Christ without becoming members of some visible
branch or section of it; and it is not pretended that children baptized
by our ministry are members of any other visible portion of the Church
of Christ than the Wesleyan. To deny, therefore, that the baptized
children of our people are members of our Church, and that they should
be acknowledged as such, and as such be impressed with their obligations
and privileges, and as such be prepared for, and brought into, the
spiritual communion and fellowship of the Church, on coming to the years
of accountability, is, it appears to me, to make the Sacrament of
Baptism a nullity, and to disfranchise thousands of children of divinely
chartered rights and privileges. Mr. Wesley, in his Treatise on Baptism,
in stating the third benefit of baptism, remarks:--
By baptism we are admitted into the Church, and consequently made
members of Christ, its Head. The Jews were admitted into the Church
by circumcision, so are the Christians by baptism.
Mr. Wesley, speaking of the proper subjects of baptism, says:
If infants are capable of making a covenant, and were and still are
under the evangelical covenant, then they have a right to baptism,
which is the entering seal thereof. But infants are capable of
making a covenant, and were and still are under the evangelical
covenant.
The custom of nations and common reason of mankind prove that
infants may enter into a covenant, and may be obliged by compacts
made by others in their name, and receive advantage by them. But we
have stronger proof than this, even God's own word: "Ye stand this
day all of you before the Lord,--your captains, with all the men of
Israel; your little ones, your wives, and the stranger,--that thou
shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God."--Deut. xxix.
10-12. Now, God would never have made a covenant with little
children, if they had not been capable of it. It is not said
children only, but little children, the Hebrew word properly
signifying infants. And these may be still, as they were of old,
obliged to perform, in aftertime, what they are not capable of
performing at the time of their entering into that obligation.
The infants of believers, the true children of faithful Abraham,
always were under the Gospel covenant. They were included in it,
they had a right to it, and to the seal of it; as an infant heir
has a right to his estate, though he cannot yet have actual
possession.--Vol. x., English Edition, pp. 193, 194. Vol. vi.,
American Edition, pp. 16, 17.
Again, Mr. Wesley's third argument on this subject is so clear, so
touching, and so conclusive, that I will quote it without abridgement,
as follows:--
If infants ought to come to Christ, if they are capable of
admission into the Church of God, and consequently of solemn
sacramental dedication to Him, then they are proper subjects of
baptism. But infants are capable of coming to Christ, of admission
into the Church, and solemn dedication to God.
That infants ought to come to Christ, appears from his own words:
"They brought little children to Christ, and the disciples rebuked
them. And Jesus said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and
forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."--Matt. xix.
13, 14. St. Luke expresses it still more strongly: "They brought
unto him even infants, that he might touch them."--xviii. 15. These
children were so little, that they were brought to him; yet he
says, "Suffer them to come unto me:" so little, that he "took them
up in His arms;" yet he rebukes those who would have hindered their
coming to Him. And his command respected the future as well as the
present. Therefore His disciples or ministers are still to suffer
infants to come, that is, to be brought, unto Christ. But they
cannot now come to Him, unless by being brought into the Church;
which cannot be but by baptism. Yea, and "of such," says our Lord,
"is the kingdom of heaven;" not of such only as were like these
infants. For if they themselves were not fit to be subjects of that
kingdom, how could others be so, because they were like them?
Infants, therefore, are capable of being admitted into the Church,
and have a right thereto. Even under the Old Testament they were
admitted into it by circumcision. And can we suppose they are in a
worse condition under the Gospel, than they were under the law? and
that our Lord would take away any privilege which they then
enjoyed? Would He not rather make additions to them? This, then, is
a third ground. Infants ought to come to Christ, and no man ought
to forbid them. They are capable of admission into the Church of
God. Therefore they are proper subjects of baptism.--Vol. x.,
English Edition, pp. 195, 196. Vol. vi., American Edition, pp. 17,
18.
Upon these Wesleyan and Scriptural grounds, I believe that the promise
and privileges of membership in the Church belong to the baptized
children of our people as well as to their parents; that the parents
have a right to claim this relationship and its privileges for their
children until such children are excluded from the Church by the lawful
acts of its executive authorities. Otherwise, the youth baptized by our
ministry are in the most pitiful and degrading religious position of the
youth of any Church that recognizes the doctrine of infant baptism; and
it appears to me that we ought rather not to baptize infants at all, or
recommend their parents to take them to other churches for baptism, than
thus to treat the feelings of such parents, and to regard their children
as having no more membership and privileges in our Church than the rest
of the youth of the land, or even the world at large.
It is happily true, that many of the children of our people, as well as
those of other people, are converted and brought into the Church under
the faithful ministrations of the Word; but how many ten thousand more
of them would never wander from the Church, would more easily and more
certainly be led to experience all the power of inward religion and the
blessings of Christian fellowship, were they acknowledged in their true
position and rights, and taught the significancy, and obligation, and
privilege of all that the outward ordinances and their visible relations
involve were intended to confer. It ought to make a Christian heart
bleed to think that our largest increase of members, according to
returns over which we are disposed to congratulate ourselves, falls
vastly short of the natural increase of population in our own community,
apart from the increase of the population of the country at large, and,
therefore, that perhaps five or more persons are sent out into the
world, as worldlings, from the families of our Church, while one is
retained or brought into it from the world by all our ministrations and
agencies. The prophets did not deny to a Jew his membership in the
Jewish Church, in order to make him a Jew inwardly. Mr. Wesley did not
un-church the tens of thousands of baptized members of the Church of
England to whom he successfully preached salvation by faith: he made
their state, and duties, and privileges, as baptized members of the
Church of Christ, the grounds of his appeals; and this vantage ground
was one great means of his wonderful success.
But I will not enlarge. I will only add, that as in former years, I,
with others, maintained what we believed to be the rights of Canada and
of our Canadian Church against pretensions which have long since been
withdrawn, and the erroneous information and impressions connected with
which have long since been removed; so, I now feel it my duty to do what
I can to secure and maintain the Scriptural and Wesleyan rights of
members of our Church against the exercise of ministerial authority
which has no warrant in Scripture nor in the writings of Mr. Wesley; and
I feel myself specially called upon by my position in respect to the
youth of the country, as well as by my strong convictions, to claim and
insist upon the Scriptural and Wesleyan rights of church membership in
behalf of the many thousands of children baptized by our
ministry--believing upon both Scriptural and Wesleyan grounds, it is due
to such children and to their parents.
I have no object in view, beyond what is avowed in this correspondence.
If I have had any personal ambition, it has been more than satisfied
both in the Church and in the country at large. I have nothing more to
seek or desire, than to employ the short and uncertain time that remains
to me in striving to become more and more meet for the intercourse of
the saints in light, to mature and promote for my native country the
great educational system in which I am engaged, and to secure to all
members of our Church, and to all parents and children baptized into it,
what I am persuaded are their sacred rights and privileges. I am
satisfied that Scriptural and Wesleyan truth will, as heretofore,
prevail, and that the Conference and the Church will yet rejoice in it,
however it may, for the moment, be clouded by error and
misrepresentation, or impeded by personal feelings, groundless fears, or
mistaken prejudice.
On the 13th June Dr. Ryerson made a request to the Conference that the
documents connected with his resignation be published in the _Guardian_.
He said:--
I wish the church to know the reasons which have influenced me on
this occasion--especially as I believe them to be both Wesleyan and
Scriptural. As I have for thirty years contributed to all the funds
of the preachers and Church, without receiving or expecting to
receive a farthing from them, and from the period and kinds of
labours I have performed in the Church, and from my wish to live in
connexion with it, I think my letters of resignation might at least
not be withheld from the members of our Church. If any expense
attend the publication of the correspondence between us, I will
defray every farthing of it.
I do not think any other member of the Conference is called upon to
do as I have done--my circumstances being peculiar. But I do not
wish to be wronged and blackened by misrepresentations; I only
desire that my brethren and old friends through the land may be
permitted and enabled to read my own reasons and views on this the
last occasion of my official intercourse with them.[140]
This request was denied, so that Dr. Ryerson published the documents in
a pamphlet himself. In doing so he said:--
A more vitally important and deeply affecting subject can scarcely be
laid before the Wesleyan community; but in order to present it to the
pious judgment of that body at large, I have had no other alternative
than to assume the position I now sustain--otherwise being compelled to
observe, as in past years, a strict silence beyond the walls of the
Conference room. But from what I have witnessed and heard in that room,
I appeal to the calm consideration of the intelligent and devout members
of the Wesleyan Church, either in their closets with their Bible before
them, or at their firesides with their children around them. Whether I
have or have not overrated the importance of the question, I leave
everyone to decide after reading the following correspondence. It will
be seen that the question is not one of a personal nature--is not one
which ought to excite any unkind feeling between persons who may take
different views of it. The question is as to whether, on the Wesleyan
Conference assuming the position and functions of a distinct and
independent Church, a condition of membership has not been imposed which
is a departure from the principles of Mr. Wesley and the doctrine and
practice of the Apostolic and Primitive Church--a condition which
ignores the church relation, rights and privileges of the baptized
children of the Wesleyan body, and excludes thousands from its
membership upon unscriptural and un-Wesleyan grounds. It will be seen by
an extract on page 20, that Mr. Wesley's disciplinary object in giving
quarterly tickets was, "to separate the precious from the vile," "to
remove any disorderly member;" but in vain have I sought for an instance
of Mr. Wesley ever excluding, even from his private societies in a
Church, an upright and orderly member for mere non-attendance at
class-meeting. That, however, he might have consistently done in a
society in a Church, if he had thought it expedient to do so, as it
would not have affected the membership of any parties in the Church to
which they belonged. The three paragraphs of our Discipline, containing
three sentences against which I protest, had no place in the Minutes of
Conference finally revised and printed by Mr. Wesley in the year of his
death; nor do they exist in the Minutes of the British Conference to
this day. From what is therefore modern and unauthorized by Scripture,
by the practice of the Primitive Church, or by Mr. Wesley, I go back to
first principles, and say, as did Mr. Wesley to Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury,
when he sent them to organize the Societies in America into a Church,
let us "simply follow the Scriptures and the Primitive Church."
It is often said that "nobody objects to attending class-meeting except
those who have no religion." Persons who thus judge of others show more
of the Pharisaical, than of the Christian, spirit, and evince but little
of the "wisdom that cometh from above" in thus "measuring others by
themselves." The following correspondence shows that I am second to none
in my appreciation of the value and usefulness of class meetings; but I
have had too much experience not to know that the best talkers in a
class-meeting are not always the best livers in the world; and I attach
less importance to what a person may say of himself in a class-meeting,
than to uprightness in his dealings, integrity in his word, meekness in
his temper, charity in his spirit, liberality in his contributions,
blamelessness in his life. Doings, rather than sayings, are the rule of
Divine judgment....
It may not be improper for me to observe, that there are ministers who
loudly advocate attendance at class-meeting as a Church-law, and yet do
not observe that law themselves perhaps once a year, much less
habitually, as they insist in respect to private members; and the most
strenuous of such advocates pay no heed to the equally positive
prohibitions and requirements of the discipline in several other
respects, especially in regard to band-meetings, which were designed, as
the Discipline expressly states, "to obey that command of God, 'confess
your faults one to another, and pray for one another, that ye may be
healed.'" I am far from intimating, or believing, that there are many
advocates of class-meeting tests of this description. But history shows,
from our Lord to the present time, that the most vehement advocates for
the "mint, annise and cummin" of particular tests and forms, are not
proportionably zealous for the "weightier matters of the law." It is
easier for men to impose and enforce law upon others than to observe it
themselves. But when a man's words and actions contradict each other,
the argument of his actions is the more forcible, as well as the more
honest and sincere.
It has likewise been alleged, that if attendance at class-meeting be not
made a church-law, and the capital punishment of expulsion be not
attached to its violation, class-meetings will fall into disuse. I
answer, this is beside the question. The question is, whether there is
such a law in the Bible? Has our Lord or His Apostles given authority to
any conclave or conference to make such a law? Our Lord and the Apostles
knew better than their followers what was essential to membership in the
Christian Church, as well as what was essential to its existence and
prosperity. I may also observe, that if the existence of class-meetings
cannot be maintained except by the terror of the scorpion-whip, or
rather executioner's sword, of expulsion from the church, it says little
for them as a privilege, or place of delightful and joyous resort. My
own conviction is, that if class-meetings, like love-feasts, were
maintained and recommended as a privilege and useful means of religious
edification, and not as a law, the observance of which is necessary to
membership in the visible Church of Christ, but made voluntary, like
joining the Missionary Society, class-meetings would be more efficient
and useful than they are now, and attendance at them would be more
cordial and profitable, if not as, or even more, general. But what might
be or not be in any supposed case, is foreign to a question as to what
is enjoined in the law and testimony of the Holy Scriptures as essential
to discipleship with Christ.
It is well known that meeting in class, by a large portion of the
members of the Wesleyan Church, is very irregular--that their absence
from class-meeting is the general rule of their practice, and their
attendance the exception. Yet such persons are not excluded, as it would
involve the expulsion of the greater part of the members of the body,
including several of its ministers. It is, therefore, so much the more
objectionable, and so much the more wrong, to have a rule which ignores
at one sweep the membership of all the baptized children of the body,
which sends and keeps away the conscientious and straightforward, who
would not think of joining a religious community without intending
habitually to observe all its rules, and yet, after all, habitually
disregarded by a large portion of both preachers and people, and is
made, as far as my observation goes, an instrument of gratifying
individual hostility, rather than a means of promoting the religious and
moral ends of Christian discipline.
It is, however, the bearing of this question upon the relationship and
destinies of the youth of the Wesleyan body that has most deeply
impressed and affected my own mind, as may be inferred from the
correspondence on the subject. It requires less scriptural zeal, and an
inferior order of qualifications, and it is much more exciting and easy,
to minister or attend at special meetings, and in the ordinary public
services of the Church, than to pursue "in season and out of season" the
less conspicuous and more detailed labour of teaching and training up
children and youth in the knowledge and experience of the doctrines of
Christ, and thus secure them to the Church, and to the Saviour, and
secure to them the "godliness which has the promise of the life that now
is, and of that which is to come."[141]
And what is the result of the general adoption (with a few fine
exceptions), of the former in preference to the latter--instead of the
union of both? It is the humiliating and most painful fact that the
great majority of Methodist youth are lost to the Church, if not lost to
Christ and to heaven--that in a large proportion of instances, Methodism
is not perpetuated to the second generation of the same family--that in
the great majority of instances it is only so perpetuated very
partially, and in very few instances to all the children of Methodist
parents; while there is each year the conversion of only a few hundreds,
or thousands, mostly from without. The return of prodigals, and the
accession of strangers and aliens to the body, are indeed causes of
thankfulness and rejoicing; but prevention is better than cure--piety
from childhood is better than reformation in manhood. The judgment of
the Apostle upon him "who neglects to provide for his own house," even
in temporal matters, is well known; and must there not be a radical
defect and wrong in any religious organization which loses the great
majority of its own youth, and depends largely on infusions from without
for the recruit of its numbers? Such an organization may do much good,
and widely extend in many places for the time being, especially in a new
and unsettled state of society; but the vital element of permanent
strength and lasting prosperity is wanting, where, by its repulsion or
neglect, the great majority of its baptized youth are alienated from,
and lost to its communion. It is not in the promise of God, or in the
genius of Scriptural Christianity, that "children trained up in the way
they should go," will, in many instances, much less generally, depart
from it in after years....
Impressed with the magnitude of the wrongs and evils above referred to,
dreading personal collision in the Conference, anticipating but little
success from it, and feeling uncertain as to how few were likely to be
the days of my earthly career, and believing that a special duty was
imposed upon me in this respect by Providential circumstances, I
addressed to the President, the 2nd of January, ... as the most likely
means, without collision with any person or body, to draw practical
attention to the subject, on the part of both the ministry and the laity
of the Church.... I have the satisfaction of knowing that, if the first
efforts of my pen, after joining the Conference in 1825, were to
advocate the right of the members of the Church to hold a bit of ground
in which to bury their dead, and the right of its ministers to perform
the marriage service for the members of their congregations, my last
efforts in connection with the Conference have been directed to obtain
the rights of Christian citizenship to the baptized children and
exemplary adherents of the Church. While I maintain that each child in
the land has a right to such an education as will fit him for his duties
as a citizen of the state, and that the obligations of the state
correspond to the rights of the child, so I maintain, upon still
stronger and higher grounds, that each child baptized by the Church is
thereby enfranchised with the rights and privileges of citizenship in
it, until he forfeits them by personal misconduct and exclusion, and
that the obligations of the Church correspond to the rights of the
child. I also maintain that each member of Christ's visible Church, has
a scriptural right to his membership in it as long as he keeps the
"commandments and ordinances of God," whether he attends or does not
attend a meeting which Mr. Wesley (who instituted it), declared to be
"merely prudential, not essential, not of divine institution," and for
not attending which he never excluded, or presumed to authorize
excluding, a person from Church membership. It is a principle of St.
Paul, in the 14th chapter of Romans, of all true Protestantism, as well
as of the writings of Mr. Wesley, "in necessary things unity, in
non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
* * * * *
In a letter, written from Quebec to a dear friend in Toronto, Dr.
Ryerson thus refers to his religious experience at that time of personal
trial on the class-meeting question. He said:--In compliance with the
entreaties of the Hon. James Ferrier and the Rev. Wm. Pollard, I
preached here last Sunday evening, and perhaps seldom with so much
effect--certainly, never in Lower Canada. The congregation was very
large; many members of the Legislature were present; and some were much
affected. I had felt condemned for not preaching in New Brunswick when
solicited; and I have felt that I have done right in obeying the powers
that be in this respect in Quebec. I am solicited to remain and preach
here again next Sunday, as many public persons have expressed
disappointment at not having heard me last Sunday evening. A leading
member of the church from Montreal was so comforted and edified, that
after having spent the evening in my room until after ten o'clock, he
went to write out all of the discourse he could remember. The friends
here seem delighted to think I will still preach, and say that I would
sin against God and man if I refused. My discourse on Sunday was the
result of my reflections and prayer here without books or notes; and I
feel much better since I consented to do what all seemed to think I
ought to do. They are quite satisfied with the course I have adopted,
and think it will result in great good, if I will not refuse to preach.
The words of St. Paul (1st Cor. ch. 9, verse 16), in a chapter to which
I opened the other day, have affected me much; and I know not that I can
otherwise do so much good during the very few years at most that now
remain to me, as to preach when desired by those who have authority in
the matter, in any church or place. I feel deeply humbled under a sense
of my own unfaithfulness, and am amazed at the great goodness,
long-suffering and compassion of God towards me.
FOOTNOTES:
[138] Mr. Wesley's own account of the origin of the office of
class-leader and class-meetings, illustrates the accuracy of what I have
stated. The office was first created at Bristol, 15th February, 1742,
for financial purposes alone. A few weeks afterwards, it was instituted
for religious purposes also; and for the twofold object of religion and
finance, it was embodied in the General Rules, which were drawn up and
signed by Mr. Wesley, 1st May, 1743; but in which there is no mention
made of class-meeting, or of the duty of any member to meet in class. In
his "Plain Account of the People called Methodists," Mr. Wesley thus
states the origin of the office of class-leader and the institution of
class-meetings.
At length (says he,) while we were thinking of quite another thing, we
struck upon a method for which we have had cause to bless God ever
since. I was talking with several of the Society in Bristol (Feb. 15,
1742,) concerning the means of paying the debts there, when one stood
up, and said, 'Let every member of the Society give a penny a week till
all are paid.' Another said, 'But many of them are poor, and cannot
afford to do it.' 'Then,' said the other, 'put eleven of the poorest
with me, and if they can give anything, well: I will see them weekly;
and if they can give nothing, I will give for them as well as for
myself. And each of you will call upon eleven of your neighbours weekly,
receive what they give, and make up what is wanting.' It was done. In a
little while some of these informed me, they found such and such an one
did not live as he ought. It struck me immediately, This is the very
thing we have wanted so long. I called together the Leaders of the
classes (so we used to term them and their companies,) and desired that
each would make particular inquiry into the behaviour of those whom he
saw weekly. They did so. Many disorderly walkers were detected. Some
turned from the evil of their ways. Some were put away from us. Many saw
it with fear, and rejoiced in God with reverence. As soon as possible,
the same method was used in London, and in all other places. The
following is Mr. Wesley's account of the first appointment of
class-leaders in London, extracted from his Journal, Thursday, March 25,
1742: I appointed several earnest and sensible men to meet me, to whom I
showed the great difficulty I had long found of knowing the people who
desired to be under my care. After much discourse, they all agreed there
could be no better way to come to a sure, thorough knowledge of each
person, than to divide them into classes, like those at Bristol, under
the inspection of those in whom I could confide. This was the origin of
our classes at London, for which I can never sufficiently praise God;
the unspeakable usefulness of the institution having ever since been
more and more manifest. In his "Plain Account of the People called
Methodists," Mr. Wesley says, "At first they (the Leaders) visited each
person at his own house; but this was soon found not so expedient, and
that on many accounts." Mr. Wesley assigns several reasons for this
change, and proceeds to answer several objections to class-meetings. The
following passage shows the exact ground on which Mr. Wesley based the
institution of class-meetings:
Some objected, 'There were no such meetings when I came into the society
first; and why should there be now? I do not understand these things,
and this changing one thing after another continually.' It was easily
answered: It is a pity but they had been from the first. But we knew not
then either the need or the benefit of them. Why we use them, you will
easily understand, if you will read over the Rules of the Society. That
with regard to these little prudential helps, we are continually
changing one thing after another, is not a weakness or fault as you
imagine, but is a peculiar privilege which we enjoy. By this means we
declare them all to be merely prudential, not essential, not of divine
institution.
Now, while it is proper for each person, as far as may be consistent
with his circumstances and views of duty, to use every prudential means
of doing and getting good, yet the observance of nothing but what is
Divinely instituted should be imposed as a condition of membership in
the Church of God. To make attendance at class-meeting that condition,
is to require what the Lord hath not commanded, and to change
essentially the character and objects of a means of good which Mr.
Wesley (with whom it originated) declared to be "merely prudential, not
essential, not of divine institution."
That Mr. Wesley conceived the basis of a church should be much more
comprehensive than the rules he drew up and recommended in regard to the
"little prudential helps" which were suggested to him from time to time,
is obvious from the eighth of his twelve reasons against organising a
new church--reasons published many years after the preparation and
adoption of all his society rules. His words are as follows: "Because to
form the plan of a new church would require infinite time and care, with
much more wisdom and greater depth and extensiveness of thought than any
of us are masters of."
[139] The following is the Article of Faith referred to:--
_XVII. Of Baptism._ Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark
of difference, whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are
not baptized, but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth.
The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church.
[140] I have understood, nevertheless, that a resolution was adopted
expressing the sense of the Conference as to my past labours in the
Church; but the publication of it has been suppressed in the official
organ, as also in the printed minutes, of the Conference.
The correspondence in the subsequent pages shows with what feelings and
sentiments I retired from the councils of the Conference; and I could
not have supposed that any members of that body were capable of
excluding from the public records of its proceedings what the Conference
had deemed a bare act of justice to an individual who had laboured
nearly thirty years in connection with it, and often performed most
difficult services and labours in its behalf. Such a proceeding will
reflect more dishonour upon its authors than upon me, in the judgment of
every honourable and Christian mind in Upper Canada, of whatever
persuasion or party. I am happy to believe that this poor imitation of
the system of the "Index Expurgatorius" cannot blot from the memories of
an older generation in the Church recollections of labours and struggles
of which the expurgators know nothing but the fruits--among which are
the civil and religious privileges they enjoy.
I have also been credibly informed that, while the real grounds of my
resignation and the judgment of the Conference upon my conduct and
labours during many years' connection with it, are withheld from the
Wesleyan public, insinuations are circulated, that my resignation has
been dictated by ulterior political objects--an idea which I have never
for one moment entertained, and which is foreign, as far as I know, to
the thoughts of every public man in Canada.
[141] Of the utter insufficiency of public ministrations alone, even for
grown up Christians, much more for children, Mr. Wesley thus speaks in
his large and authorized Minutes of Conference:--"For what avails public
preaching alone, though we could preach like angels? We must, yea, every
travelling preacher must, instruct them from house to house. Till this
is done, and that in good earnest, the Methodists will be little better
than other people. Our religion is not deep, universal, uniform; but
superficial, partial, uneven. It will be so, till we spend half as much
time in this visiting, as we now do in talking uselessly." "For, after
all our preaching, many of our people are almost as ignorant as if they
had never heard the gospel. I speak as plain as I can, yet I frequently
meet with those who have been my hearers many years, who know not
whether Christ be God or man. And how few are there who know the nature
of repentance, faith and holiness. Most of them have a sort of
confidence that God will save them, while the world has their hearts. I
have found by experience, that one of these has learned more from one
hour's close discourse than from ten years' public preaching." "Let
every preacher having a catalogue of those in each society, go to each
house. Deal gently with them, that the report of it may move others to
desire your coming. Give the children the instructions for children, and
encourage them to get them by heart. Indeed, you will find it no easy
matter to teach the ignorant the principles of religion. So true is the
remark of Archbishop Usher--'Great scholars may think this work beneath
them. But they should consider, the laying the foundation skilfully, as
it is of the greatest importance, so it is the masterpiece of the wisest
builder. And let the wisest of us all try, whenever we please, we shall
find that to lay this ground-work rightly, to make the ignorant
understand the grounds of religion, will put us to all our skill.'"
"Unless we take care of the rising generation, the present revival will
be _res unius aetatis_ (a thing of one generation); it will last only
the age of a man."
There are several ministers who earnestly labour in the spirit of these
extracts from Mr. Wesley's Minutes of Conference--printed the year of
his death. But their labours are the promptings of individual zeal and
intelligence, and not dictated or backed by the authoritative example of
the ministry and Church at large, or the recognition of the Church
relations of the interesting subjects of their instructions. The effect
of the general disuse or neglect of systematic individual instruction of
children, not speaking of such, instruction of adult members, and
reliance upon public ministrations and meetings alone, must be
instability of religious profession, want of clear and acute views of
the grounds, doctrines, nature, institutions and duties of religion,
indifference to all religion, or wandering from denomination to
denomination according to circumstances or caprice; but in all cases the
loss to the Wesleyan Church of the greater part of the harvest which she
should and might gather into the garner of Christ.
CHAPTER LV.
1855.
Dr. Ryerson Resumes his Position in the Conference.
Although the great majority of the Conference of 1854, after much
conflict of feeling--in which regret and sympathy were mingled--rejected
the resolutions proposed by Dr. Ryerson on the class-meeting question,
yet sorrow at the loss from their councils of so distinguished a man as
Dr. Ryerson prevailed amongst them. This feeling deepened as the year
advanced, and much personal effort was made to induce him to consent to
some honourable means by which his return to the ministerial ranks could
be secured. At length, as the Conference-year neared its close, he
yielded to the wishes of his friends, and, on the 26th May, 1855,
addressed the following letter to Rev. Dr. Wood, President of the
Conference:--
From the conversations which have taken place between you, my brother,
and some others of our ministers and myself, in reference to my present
and future relations to the Conference and to the Church, I think it but
respectful and an act of duty to state my views in writing, that there
may be no misapprehension on the subject, and that you may adopt such a
course as you shall think advisable.
When I wrote my letters of resignation of office in the Church, the one
dated 2nd January, 1854, and the other the 12th day of June following, I
had but faint expectations of being in the land of the living at this
time. In what I wrote and did, I acted under the apprehension of having
no longer time for delay in attesting, in the most decisive and
practical way in my power, what I believe to be the divine rights of
members of the visible Church of Christ whether they are baptized
children or professing Christians. Since then I have reason to be
thankful that the alarming symptoms in respect to my health have in a
great measure subsided, and that I have the prospect of being able to
continue my labours with undiminished strength and vigor, at least for
some time to come.
In my first letter to you I stated and explained at length my belief
that making attendance at class-meeting an essential condition of
membership in the Church of God, is not only requiring what is not
enjoined in the word of God, but excluding, on other than scriptural
grounds, exemplary persons from the Church of Christ, and unchurching
the baptized children of our people who, as well as their parents, are
scripturally entitled to membership in the Church. Having given the
subject much further consideration during the last twelve months, and
having examined all the works on it within my reach, I am, if possible,
more fully confirmed in the views I expressed last year, as both
Wesleyan and scriptural, than when I penned them. And it is not unworthy
of remark, that the only two newspapers in Canada which have combatted
my views have been _The Church_ and _The Catholic Citizen_; and both of
these papers have done so upon the ground that my views were not
compatible with the due authority of the Church to decree dogmas, rites
and ceremonies. I acknowledge myself a heretic according to their creed
of ecclesiastical authority; and I confess that the position I have been
unexpectedly compelled to assume during the last two or three years as
to the right of every man to the Bible, and the rights of individuals
and municipalities against compulsion in regard to taxation for the
support of sectarian schools, has more deeply impressed upon my mind
than ever that the Bible is the only safeguard of civil liberty, and
that "the Bible only ought to be the religion of Protestants;" and
especially in a matter so important as that which determines who are
members and what are the conditions of membership in the Church of
Christ.
I must, therefore, in all frankness and honesty, still declare my
conviction that there is no scriptural authority for the power which is
given to a minister, by the answers to the 4th question in the 2nd
section of the 2nd chapter of our Discipline, to exclude a person from
the Church of God for what is expressly stated not to be "immoral
conduct," namely, not attending a meeting which is not ranked among the
ordinances of the Church in the General Rules of our Societies, which
the 12th section of the 1st chapter of our Discipline does not enumerate
among the "prudential means of grace," even among Methodists, and which
Mr. Wesley stated to be "not spiritual, not of divine institution." I
would never exercise such authority myself; I never have exercised it;
but I will not assume to judge those who think and act otherwise.
I beg, however, that it may not be forgotten, that while I thus speak
and quote the authorities of the Church in respect to class-meeting as a
test or condition of Church membership; yet as a prudential means of
grace and a mode and means of Christian fellowship, I regard
class-meetings (as stated in my former letters above referred to), as
well as love-feasts and prayer-meetings, as of the greatest value and
importance. But when I think of class-meeting being converted into a
condition of membership in the Church of Christ, and thus made the
occasion of excluding from its pale the whole early generation of our
people and many other sincere Christians, I cannot view it as I would
wish, and as I could otherwise do, with the same feelings that I view
love-feasts and prayer-meetings.
In regard to the other aspect of the question, as it applies to the
baptized children of our people, and in which the nature and office of
Baptism are involved, I feel it to be of such vital importance that I
must beg to make some observations which I hope may not be considered
out of place, or prove altogether useless.
The circumstances which have caused me to feel so strongly on this point
were stated in my letter to you on the 2nd January, 1854, and afterwards
more fully justified in my letter of the 12th of June following; and it
is with no small degree of surprise that I have found my views
misapprehended and pronounced unsound. It has been alleged that they
involve baptismal regeneration. Nothing can be further from the fact.
What I maintain is simply what is stated in the 17th Article of Faith
professed by our Church, and by the catechism used in the Methodist
Church on both sides of the Atlantic, and what is set forth at large in
the writings of Mr. Wesley and Mr. Watson. Baptism, like the Lord's
Supper, is an outward sign; but, of course, neither can be that of which
it is the sign.
Baptism (as the 17th Article of our Faith expresses it), is not
only a sign of profession, and mark of difference whereby
Christians are distinguished from others that are unbaptized, but
it is also a sign of regeneration, or the new birth.
What I maintain is, that baptism is the outward and visible sign, while
regeneration, or the new birth, is the inward spiritual grace; that by
baptism we are born into the visible Church of Christ on earth, while by
the Holy Ghost we are born into the spiritual or invisible Church of
Christ in heaven, the same as in the Lord's Supper; there is the visible
act of the Church and of the body of communicants, and the invisible act
of the Saviour by the Holy Ghost and of the soul of the communicant. The
two are distinct; the one may not accompany the other; but they may, and
often do, accompany each other. The parent should bring his child in
faith to the Lord's baptism, the same as the communicant should come in
faith to the Lord's Supper. The communion of the Lord's Supper is the
act of a professed member of Christ's visible Church; the receiving of
the Lord's baptism, is receiving the seal of membership in Christ's
visible Church, that "mark of difference whereby Christians are
distinguished from others that are not baptized." Hence in the Wesleyan
catechism, the question is asked,--
What are the privileges of baptized persons? The answer is,--They
are made members of the visible church of Christ; their gracious
relation to Him as the Second Adam, and as the Mediator of the New
Covenant, is solemnly ratified by divine appointment; and they are
thereby recognized as having a claim to all the spiritual blessings
of which they are the proper subjects.
I maintain, therefore, that the language of our Articles of Faith and
Catechism, as well as of our Baptismal Service and the writings of Mr.
Wesley, explicitly declares baptism an act of the Church by which it
receives the children baptized into its bosom--that all baptized
children are truly members of Christ's visible Church, although they be
not communicants in it until they personally profess the Faith of their
Baptism, and evince their desire to flee from the wrath to come by the
negative and positive proofs so briefly and fully enumerated in the
General Rules of our societies.
The Church membership of baptized children is known to be the doctrine
of all parties in the Church of England, as well as of Mr. Wesley. It is
equally the doctrine of all sections of the Presbyterian Church, in
which the baptized children are regarded as members of the Church, but
not communicants until they make a personal profession of conversion,
and receive a token or ticket of admission to the Lord's Supper. On this
point it is sufficient to cite the following passages from the fifteenth
chapter of the fourth book of Calvin's Institutes.
Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the
society of the Church, in order that being incorporated into
Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God.... For as
circumcision was a pledge to the Jews, by which they were assured
of their adoption as the people and family of God, and on their
parts professed their entire subjection to Him, and, therefore, was
their first entrance into the Church; so now we are initiated into
the Church of God by baptism, are numbered among His people, and
profess to devote ourselves to his service.... How delightful is it
to pious minds, not only to have verbal assurances, but even
occular proof, of their standing so high in the favour of their
heavenly Father, that their posterity also are the objects of his
care! This is evidently the reason why Satan makes such great
exertions in opposition to infant baptism: that the removal of this
testimony of the grace of God may cause the promise which it
exhibits before our eyes gradually to disappear, and at length to
be forgotten. The consequence of this would be an impious
ingratitude to the mercy of God, and negligence of the instruction
of our children in the principles of piety. For it is no small
stimulus to our education of them in the serious fear of God, and
the observance of His law, to reflect, that they are considered and
acknowledged by Him as His children as soon as they are born.
Wherefore, unless we are obstinately determined to reject the
goodness of God, let us present to Him our children, to whom He
assigns a place in His family, that is, among the members of His
church.
Richard Watson, the great expounder of Wesleyan Christian doctrine,
treats this subject elaborately in the third chapter of the fourth part
of his Theological Institutes. I will only quote the following
sentences:--
Infant children are declared by Christ to be members of His Church.
That they were members of God's Church, in the family of Abraham,
and among the Jews, cannot be denied.... The membership of the Jews
comprehended both children and adults; and the grafting-in of the
Gentiles, so as to partake of the same "root and fatness," will,
therefore, include a right to put their children also into the
covenant, so that they, as well as adults, may become members of
Christ's Church, have God to be their God, and be acknowledged by
Him, in the special sense of the terms of the covenant, to be His
people.... "Whosoever (says Christ) shall receive this child in my
name, receiveth me;" but such an identity of Christ with His
disciples stands wholly upon their relation to Him as members of
His "mystic body, the Church." It is in this respect only that they
are "one with Him;" and there can be no identity of Christ with
"little children" but by virtue of the same relation, that is, as
they are members of His mystical body, the Church; of which
membership baptism is now, as circumcision was then, the initiatory
rite.... The benefits of this Sacrament require to be briefly
exhibited. Baptism introduces the adult believer into the covenant
of grace and the Church of Christ; and is the seal, the pledge, to
him, on the part of God, of the fulfilment of all its provisions,
in time and in eternity; whilst on his part, he takes upon himself
the obligation of steadfast faith and obedience. To the infant
child, baptism is a visible reception into the same covenant and
church, a pledge of acceptance through Christ--the bestowment of a
title to all the grace of the covenant as circumstances may
require, and as the mind of the child may be capable of receiving
it; and as it may be sought in future life by prayer, when the
period of reason and moral choice shall arrive. It conveys also the
present blessing of Christ, of which we are assured by His taking
children in His arms, and blessing them; which blessing cannot be
merely nominal, but must be substantial and efficacious. It
secures, too, the gift of the Holy Spirit in those secret spiritual
influences, by which the actual regeneration of those children who
die in infancy is effected; and which are a seed of life in those
who are spared to prepare them for instruction in the word of God,
as they are taught by parental care, to incline their will and
affections to good, and to begin and maintain in them the war
against inward and outward evil, so that they may be divinely
assisted, as reason strengthens, to make their calling and election
sure. In a word, it is, both as to infants and adults, the sign,
and pledge of that inward grace, which, though modified in its
operations by the difference of their circumstances, has respect
to, and flows from, a covenant relation to each of the Three
Persons in whose one name they are baptized,--acceptance by the
Father--union with Christ as the head of His mystical body, the
Church--and communion with the Holy Ghost. To these advantages must
be added the respect which God bears to the believing act of the
parents, and to their solemn prayers on the occasion, in both of
which the child is interested; as well as in that solemn engagement
of the parents which the rite necessarily implies, to bring up
their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
To these impressive words of Richard Watson, I add the following equally
impressive extract from the pastoral address of the Wesleyan Conference
in England to the Societies under its charge in 1837:--
By baptism you place your children within the pale of the visible
Church, and give them a right to all its privileges, the pastoral
care of its ministers, and as far as their age and capacity will
allow, the enjoyment of its ordinances and means of grace. These
children are not offshoots of the Church, enjoying only a distant
relation to it, but they are of it, as a fact; they are grafted
into the body of Christ's disciples; they are partakers of an
initiatory and provisional state of acceptance with God, and can
forfeit their right to the fellowship of the saints only by a
course of sin. Besides, when this sacred ordinance is regarded by
parents in the spirit of prayer and faith, it cannot be
unaccompanied by the divine blessing. Grace is connected with every
institution of the Christian Church; and when children are
constituted a part of the flock of Christ by being placed within
the fold, they have a peculiar claim on the care of that good
Shepherd who "gathereth the lambs with his arms and carries them in
his bosom;" and they will receive instruction, spiritual
influences, tender care, and the exercise of mercy, agreeing with
the relation in which they stand to God. On these grounds we
affectionately exhort you to place your beloved offspring within
the "courts of the house of our God," and amongst the number of His
family, by strictly attending to this divinely appointed ordinance
of our Saviour.[142]
Dr. Ryerson's views were, therefore, the same in 1834 as they were in
1854--that by Baptism children stand in the relation of members of the
Church, and should be enrolled in its registers, and entitled to its
privileges, until they, by their own voluntary irregularity or neglect,
forfeit them. The coincidence mentioned, and the consistency of the
views expressed by Dr. Ryerson twenty years before, are very remarkable.
* * * * *
Now what are these solemn and affecting words of John Calvin, of Richard
Watson, and of the British Conference, but a mockery and a snare, if the
baptized children are not to be acknowledged and treated as members of
the visible church of Christ? Ought not then children baptised by the
Wesleyan ministry to be recognized and cared for as members of the
Wesleyan Church? It is absurd, and leaves them in a state of religious
orphanage, to say that they are members of the visible Church of Christ,
but not members of any particular branch of it. As well might it be
said, that the children born in Canada, are members of the Canadian
family, but not members of any particular family in Canada. To be the
former without being the latter, would indeed allow them a country, but
would leave them without a home, without a parent, without a protector,
without an inheritance--homeless, houseless, destitute orphans. Is this
the relation in which the baptized children of our people are to be
viewed to the Church of their parents? In doing so, are not the most
powerful considerations, motives and influences brought to bear upon
both parents and children? In not doing so, is not the greatest wrong
inflicted upon both, the ordinance of baptism virtually ignored, and its
blessings lost? But in denying that any one is or can be a member of the
Church except one who meets in class, are not the baptized children of
our people refused a place within its pale? deprived of their baptismal
birthright, before they are old enough to forfeit it by transgression?
shut out from the family of God's people, and as practically unchurched
as if they had never received a Christian name, in the name of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? I cannot reflect upon the
subject or contemplate its consequences, without the deepest pain and
solicitude. I will pursue it no further, but will leave it with you and
those on whom the responsibility of deciding upon it devolves.
It will be remembered that I have never said anything as to the mode of
receiving adult persons from without into the Church; nor as to the
class of members who alone should be eligible to hold office in the
Church; nor have I entertained the idea that any other than the
scriptural summary of Christian morality contained in the General Rules
of our Societies should be applied to all members of the Church, whether
in full communion or not. Nor have I other than supposed that all
persons recognized as a part of the Church, would, as far as
circumstances can permit, be registered as classes, and called upon
regularly by a leader or steward for their contributions in support of
the ministry and other institutions of the Church, the same as persons
meeting weekly in a class. What I have said applies wholly and
exclusively to the Church relation and rights of the baptized children
of our people, and to the rights of persons otherwise admitted into the
Church, who, I believe, ought not to be excluded from it except for what
would exclude them from the kingdom of grace and glory.
Anything appertaining to myself personally is unworthy of mention in
such a connexion. I banish from my mind and heart the recollection and
feeling of anything I consider to have been uncalled for and unjust
towards myself on the part of others. Though I have resigned the
ecclesiastical or outward authority to exercise the functions of the
Christian ministry, I have never regarded myself as a secular man; I
have felt, and do feel, and especially with improved health, the inward,
and, I trust, divine conviction of duty to preach, as occasion may
offer and strength permit, the unsearchable riches of Christ to dying
men. And if after the past publication and foregoing statement of my
convictions on the point of Church Discipline and its administration, as
affecting baptized children and other scripturally blameless members of
the Church, and my purpose to maintain them on such occasions, and in
such manner as are sanctioned by the Discipline, the Conference thinks
it proper and desirable that I should resume my former relations to it
and to the Church, I am willing to cancel my resignation, and to labour,
as heretofore, to preach the doctrines and promote the agencies of the
Church which I have sought by every earthly means in my power, though
with conscious unfaithfulness before God, to advance during the last
thirty years, and which are, I believe, according to the Scriptures, and
calculated to promote the present and everlasting well-being of man.
The reading of this letter at the London Conference of 1855 led to a
great deal of discussion and various explanations, which unfortunately
afterwards resulted in much misunderstanding and recrimination. The
Conference, however, with a unanimity and heartiness which reflected
great credit for its calm judgment and Christian love of unity, passed
the following resolution by a nearly two-thirds majority:--
That while this Conference declares its unaltered determination to
maintain inviolate the position held respecting the views contained
in Dr. Ryerson's communications of last year, and upon which his
resignation was tendered and accepted; yet upon the application
which the latter part of Dr. Ryerson's present communication
contains, this Conference restores him to his former standing and
relations to the Conference and the Church.
After the resolution was passed, Dr. Ryerson went to the Conference at
London, and in a letter which he wrote to me, dated January 9th, he
said:--
My entrance into the Conference was cordially greeted. I was very
affectionately welcomed and introduced by the President, Rev. Dr. Wood,
after which I briefly addressed the Conference, and I have since taken
the same part in the proceedings as heretofore.
After a long discussion yesterday, a very important change was made in
the Discipline. By this change a minister may be stationed in the same
circuit during five years, if requested by the quarterly meeting. A
prominent member made a long and violent speech against it. I replied at
length, and stated the general grounds on which I thought the change
recommended by the Stationing Committee should be adopted. After the
adoption of the resolution, I congratulated the Conference on this
indication of progress in a direction to what was regarded as heretical
when I first introduced the proposition five years ago. Some preacher
said I was a little too soon. I said perhaps I had the misfortune of
having been born a few years too soon. Another said that he supposed I
expected that other changes would also follow. I replied, time would
show. I was informed that all (even Messrs. Jeffers and Spencer)
expressed a desire for my return to the Conference. The lengthened
discussion was based upon certain parts of my letter to Mr. Wood, which
it was held were not courteous, but a bearding of the Conference. On the
other hand, it was contended that my sentiments even on the
class-meeting condition of membership were the practice of those very
preachers who objected to them. Examples were given, much to the
surprise of certain parties, who professed to be the greatest sticklers
on the subject. It was professed by all, without exception, that but for
certain phrases in my letter (to the sentiments of which, it was
maintained, the Conference would be committed by the resolution
proposed) the vote in regard to me would have been unanimous.
* * * * *
Amongst other congratulatory letters received by Dr. Ryerson, none were
more gratifying to him than the following characteristic letter from
Rev. John Black, in township of Rawdon, written on the 16th of June:--
My good Mr. Lever, of Sidney, in a letter from the Conference,
informs me that "Dr. Ryerson is once more among his brethren, and,
as usual, taking an active part in the affairs of Conference."
Although three of my children were confined to bed by sickness, yet
on hearing such news I was almost ready for a shout.
Permit me to say that your departure from us at Belleville, twelve
months ago, lay heavy on my heart; and now to hear the above
intelligence is good to my soul. For many years I have been much
attached to Mr. Egerton Ryerson. We were "taken on trial" at the
same time, and together were ordained to the great work of the
ministry. And although you, Mr. R., have been near the head, and I,
Mr. B., near the foot, yet we are in the same ranks, fighting the
battles of the Lord, and exercising our talents in behalf of truth
and righteousness. I know that your time is precious, yet I believe
you will spare a minute or two in reading a few lines from your
affectionate, and now almost worn-out, friend and well-wisher. Long
may you live for the purpose of using your talents for the benefit
of Church and State! This fervent wish stands at a distance from
mere compliment and from flattery, and is the free emotion of a
Methodist heart.
FOOTNOTES:
[142] As early as 1834, Dr. Ryerson was deeply impressed with the
correctness of these views. Having, in the Guardian of the 9th of April,
1834, called the attention of his ministerial brethren to the pressing
duty of giving effect to the section of the Discipline on the
"Instruction of Children," he proceeded to point out in the Guardian of
the 23rd of that month, the privileges which baptism confers upon
Methodist children, fortifying his views by the following quotation from
Rev. R. Watson's Institutes:--Baptism introduces the adult believer into
the covenant of Grace, and the Church of Christ.... To the infant child
it is a visible reception into the same covenant and Church.... In a
word, it is both to infants and adults a sign and pledge of that inward
grace, which has respect to and flows from a covenant relation to each
of the three persons, in whose one name they are baptized--acceptance
with Christ as the Head of His mystical body, the Church, and of
communion of the Holy Ghost.
CHAPTER LVI.
1855-1858.
Personal Episode in the Class-Meeting Discussion.
I have already referred to the character of the discussion which
resulted in Dr. Ryerson's restoration to the Conference. In the heat of
that discussion some things may have been said by Dr. Ryerson's friends
which were not warranted by the terms of his letter of the 26th of May;
or what was said may have been construed (designedly or otherwise) into
an admission of assurance on Dr. Ryerson's part that he would cease to
agitate the question, or that he would hold his opinions in abeyance.
The discussion on the Class-meeting question was the chief event in the
proceedings of the Wesleyan Conference of 1855. Yet not the slightest
reference to the subject, or to Dr. Ryerson's return to the Conference
was made in the report of the proceedings which were published in the
_Guardian_ of the 13th and 20th of June in that year. It was not until
some time after the adjournment of the Conference, and the departure of
Dr. Ryerson for Europe, that the subject was mentioned in that paper,
and what did appear was apparently an afterthought.[143]
After Dr. Ryerson had gone, an editorial appeared in the _Guardian_ of
the 27th of June from which the following is an extract:--
We did not notice in our summary account of the proceedings of the
Conference the return of Dr. Ryerson to his former position with
that body, but as erroneous statements have appeared in the paper
respecting it we think proper to give the facts of the case.
A short time previous to the sitting of the Conference Dr. Ryerson
addressed a letter to the President, in which he stated that his
views remained unaltered respecting the points of difference
between himself and the Conference; he expressed a desire to resume
his ministerial duties in the Church. The communication was
accompanied with a verbal assurance that his own peculiar views on
the questions at issue would be held in abeyance in deference to
the determination of the Conference to maintain inviolate those
parts of the Wesleyan Discipline to which his communication
referred. This was the position in which the application of Dr.
Ryerson was presented to the Conference, and, after a somewhat
animated discussion on the subject, the resolution [for his
re-admission] was adopted by nearly a two-thirds majority.
Immediately on the publication of this article, I sent it to Dr. Ryerson
at Boston, where he was about to take the steamer for England. He at
once replied to the Editor, and sent the letter to me for insertion in
the _Guardian_. In his private note to me, dated 3rd July, he said:--
I think the _Guardian's_ statement is the most shameful attack that
was ever made upon me--one that I did not expect even from him--one
that I would not have believed had I not seen it. What may be the
end of this affair, I cannot yet see. But I am satisfied in my own
conscience as to the course I have pursued, and as to my present
duty. As to rescinding the clause of the Discipline relating to the
exclusion of persons for not attending class-meetings, no
determination was expressed to enforce it. On the contrary, it was
declared to be a dead letter in many places. What I maintained was,
that the practice and the rule should be in harmony. You will see
what I have said to the Editor of the _Guardian_ in a private note.
Remember me affectionately to all; and may Almighty God prosper you
in your educational work during my absence.
The following is a copy of the private letter to Rev. J. Spencer, which
accompanied Dr. Ryerson's reply to the editorial:
I was not a little surprised and pained at your unfair and unjust
statement respecting me, and especially after what passed on my leaving
the Conference, and your careful silence on the subject until I had left
home, and would not therefore be likely to have it in my power to
furnish an antidote until your injurious statement had accomplished its
object as far as possible. But I am thankful that, through the prompt
kindness of Mr. Hodgins, and by that means alone, I have been furnished
with a copy of the _Guardian_ in time to write a hasty reply before
embarking for the other side of the Atlantic. I have requested Mr.
Hodgins to take a copy of my communication to you, as I have not time to
transcribe it. You can as easily command my letter to the President of
the Conference as you did the resolution of the Conference. I ask for no
indulgence or favour; I ask for nothing but truth and justice.
I will thank you to inform Mr. Hodgins as early as possible as to
whether you intend to perpetuate the wrong you have done me, by refusing
to insert my letter to the President of the Conference, and the note I
have this evening addressed to you in reference to your statement. I
wish Mr. Hodgins to inform me of the result by the next mail to England,
and also to act otherwise by me as I would by him in like
circumstances.[144]
Having got Dr. Ryerson's reply to the _Guardian's_ attack of 27th June,
inserted in the Toronto city papers, I wrote to him to that effect. His
reply is dated, London (Eng.,) 3rd August:--I thank you sincerely for
the pains you have taken in regard to my letter to the _Guardian_. I am
thankful that, by your zeal and good management, the Methodist body, as
well as the public at large, will have an opportunity of learning my own
views from my own pen; but considering the intended course of the
_Guardian_, and what he alleges to be the feelings of many others, I
have great doubts whether I can be of any use to the Wesleyan body, or
of much use to the interests of religion in connection with the
Conference, and that I shall rather embarrass, and be a burden to my
friends in the Conference, than be a help to them. My only wish and aim
as a minister is, to preach the evangelical doctrines I have always
proclaimed, and which are preached with power by many clergymen of the
Church of England and Presbyterian Churches, and often more forcibly,
than by many Methodist ministers.
I confess, from what you state, I see no prospect of effecting the
changes in the relation and privileges of baptized children, and the
test of membership in the Methodist Church, which I believe to be
required by the Scriptures, and by consistency. I apprehend that
anything proposed by me on these subjects will be made the occasion of
violent attacks and agitation, and that personal hostility to me will be
made a sort of test of orthodoxy among a large party in the Conference
and in the Church--thus exposing my friends to much unpleasantness and
disadvantage on my account, and reducing, if not extinguishing, all
opportunities on my part to preach, as I should be (as in times past)
wholly dependent upon the invitations of others.
* * * * *
From this incident a private and confidential correspondence on the
subject was maintained for months between Dr. Ryerson in Europe and
myself, in Canada.
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.
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 Societé 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.