66

them therein, by plunging them into the water, pouring or sprinkling it on them, as they may prefer. Hence, some go down into the water and are immersed, others go down into it and are sprinkled, or poured, and all come up straightway out of the water" together, having answered a good conscience and followed the Scriptures. Others, believing that the baptisms which occurred at Jordan and elsewhere, in the open air, were rather accidental as to the place, it not having been sought for this purpose more than the jail was sought for the baptism of the jailer and his household, and having no intimation in the Bible that Jesus or his apostles ever left the place where they were assembled, to find conveniences for immersion, they receive the ordinance in the house of God where they hear the word and believe.

Thus we preach and practise. Those who insist on im mersion or nothing, and some who allow immersion to be Scriptural, but will baptize only by sprinkling, complain that we have no principles; but they mistake us. Our principles are fixed and definite, and by following them we avoid the extremes of our opponents-exclusive immersion on the one hand, and exclusive sprinkling on the other—and unite those in the bonds of Christian union who would be immersed themselves, but have no disposition to require it of others; and those who would not be immersed, but are will ing that others should be, if they prefer it.

The arguments on this point are before the public in so many different forms, it is unnecessary to refer to them here.

5. Baptism is not a pre-requisite to the Lord's supper, The idea that Christians are not eligible to receive the emblems of the body and blood of Christ, however pious, till they have been baptized, is a device of Close Communion

Baptists, that has no foundation in Scripture. We have no evidence that the first partakers of this sacrament had themselves been baptized. Indeed, Christian baptism was not instituted till afterward. Nor have we the slightest intimation, among the numerous allusions made to it, that it was a necessary qualification for the other sacrament.

That baptism was usually administered soon after believ ing, and previous to the eucharist, is probable. So it preceded many other duties, as it does now; but that it was a necessary qualification for the eucharist is another thing. There is not the slightest evidence of it, any more than that it was a pre-requisite for the other duties it preceded. Hence, we regard young Christians, who have had no opportunity to be baptized, but who purpose to be, as soon as practicable, as suitable candidates for the Lord's supper as any other. Because they have not attended to one ordinance, for the want of opportunity, we do not feel authorized to exclude them from another. And yet the general practice of the church, to baptize converts soon after they believe, and prior to their going to the Lord's table, we have no doubt, is a prudent arrangement. But it affords no justification of Close Communicants, in excluding all Christians from their table who will not consent to be plunged by their own ministers.

Those who wish to examine this question critically, will find all needful assistance in the writings of Robert Hall, who, though a Baptist, repudiated Close Communion as unworthy of a place in the Christian Church.

On this subject we need say but little. Our views are entirely Protestant, and do not essentially differ from those of other evangelical denominations. We generally receive

the elements on our knees, because we think it more appropriate; but if any prefer to receive them sitting or standing, they can do so. The ordinance is usually administered in our regular stations the first Sabbath in each month, and it is desired that all our members, and other Christians who may be present, should partake. Those only who have experience on this subject can appreciate the high spiritual advantages the ordinance is calculated to secure.

PART THIRD.

OF GOVERNMENT, PARTICULARLY THAT OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH

CHAPTER I.

A GENERAL EXHIBIT OF DIFFERENT SYSTEMS.

WE use the term government here to indicate that form of rules and principles, by which the affairs of our church are conducted. The fact that most of the divisions in the Wesleyan family, owe their origin to questions of this nature, is a sufficient reason of itself for a pretty thorough investigation of the subject. So many outbreaks indicate that all is not right. If our principles are correct, our administration is erroneous, or else there is fault on the other side. It is not impossible that the seceders have been too ambitious of power, or of ease; of profit, or of honor; or they may have fallen into a pet, and struck for division out of revenge, and raised objections to our government only to cover their retreat and punish their old friends. This can be best judged of when all the facts are known.

But others complain. Some say we are too episcopal, and they cannot like us; while another class avow that we have no legitimate episcopacy among us. Thus we are berated, first on one side and then on the other; and it is a little wonderful, considering the talent that has been arrayed

against us, that we have not been quite destroyed. But we have had friends, and able defenders. Nevertheless, we are not out of danger. Other separations will occur in their time, and new opponents will rise up to accomplish. what their predecessors attempted in vain. The more

ignorant of our system they find the community, the more successful will be their endeavors. It seems desirable, therefore, that we fortify ourselves and our friends by a thorough knowledge of our plan, and its philosophy, that we may be able to withstand the fiery darts of any future enemy that may appear. To contribute to this result is our present object.

The importance of some definite form of government cannot be too highly appreciated. Those churches which have undertaken to manage their affairs under the general directions of the New Testament, each member interpreting for himself, have experienced difficulties to which others are strangers. They have almost universally fallen into indif ference, or disagreements, and perished without remedy. Discipline is as necessary as instruction. To live together profitably in church fellowship, Christians need to agree as to the import of Scripture, both as to doctrine and practice, in respect to each other, as well as to Him whom they serve. Otherwise, no one will understand his duties or privileges, and all will be in danger of serious mistakes and punishments.

But what form of government a church should adopt, is not so easily determined. It is generally conceded that the Scriptures do not impose any one form in particular, but leave it to the church to adopt such as circumstances may require. This is the testimony of the most eminent divines of all ages. Says Mr. Watson, adopting the language of Bishop Tomline: "As it has not pleased our almighty