FOOTNOTES:

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 theentering 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.

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.

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 ministerialauthority 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 theGuardian. 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]

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 Churchto 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 lessscriptural 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 tothe 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 themby 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 beres 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.

[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."

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.

[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.

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 beres 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.

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.

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 conditionof 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 beenThe ChurchandThe 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 myformer 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 visibleChurch, 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 Christiandoctrine, 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:—

Back to Index Next