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.