The Story of My Life / Being Reminiscences of Sixty Years' Public Service in Canada

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.

Clyx.com