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_.