being corrupted by becoming the inmates of these institutions, are more likely to become religious by being placed in them, than by being kept under their paternal roofs.

VIII. On its growing prosperity.

Ever since the organization of the Church, the Methodists in this country have been multiplying much faster than they ever did before. Revivals of religion commenced, almost every where within the limits of the Church, soon after its organization: so that the Church grew with the growth of the country; extended with its new settlements; and increased continually with its increasing population. The result of which is, that it now numbers 638,784 Church members, and 2,625 travelling ministers and preachers. As we have already noticed, at the time of the organization of the Church, they numbered 14,988 members, and 83 travelling preachers; so that in fifty years the nett increase of Church members is more than forty-six times greater; and that of the travelling ministers and preachers, more than thirty-one and a half times greater than they were at the time when the Church was organized. What hath God wrought! Surely, Jesus Christ, the incarnate God, the great Head of the Church, has been with this branch of His mystical body on earth, in an eminent manner, during the fifty years of its existence.

IX. On the great moral and spiritual effects which have resulted from its operations.

In speaking of the great moral and spiritual advantages which have resulted from the existence of the M. E. Church, in this country, we are not to confine ourselves to those who are now its members. We should look, first, at the hundreds of thousands of souls which have been saved from guilt and depravity through its instrumentality; and who, after exerting a beneficial influence upon their country, and indeed upon all classes of their fellow men, have finally died in the fellowship of this Church, in the faith of the Gospel, and in the peace of God; and are now safely lodged in Abraham's bosom. But, secondly, the influence of the M. E. Church has not been confined to those who have become its members. Tens of thousands, yea, hundreds of thousands, it is presumed, who have been converted to God through the instrumentality of the Methodists, have joined other Churches, and become ornaments to their communions. Thirdly, we are not to stop even here. Methodism has exerted a beneficial influence upon most of the other Churches throughout this widely-extended country. Their doctrines have become more pure, their preaching more evangelical, their lives more holy through this influence; and multitudes, in all probability, have been saved through the instrumentality of these other Churches, who never would have been, but for the influence which the M. E. Church has exerted upon them. Fourthly, we are not to stop even here. Methodism has exerted an influence upon the American community, which has done more than can be estimated to promote the growing prosperity, the peace, and especially the good morals of the country at large. And, fifthly, it has exerted a great amount of moral and spiritual influence upon the aborigines of this country; and extended it, through American commerce, to almost every part of the world. Surely, therefore, we may say in truth, that Jesus Christ is God with us. He has, evidently, presided over the destinies

.

of the M. E. Church for fifty years. He prepared the way, in his providence, and by his grace, for its organization. He caused that organization to be effected. He has been with its ministers and members, and sustained them in their arduous labors and their various trials. He has been with their assemblies. He has dwelt by his Spirit in the hearts of all its faithful members. And, therefore, we may say with the dying Wesley, 'The best of all is, God is with us.' Now, as God has thus been with this Church for fifty years; and as He is evidently with it still, as its present growing prosperity evinces, we have reason to believe that He will continue to be with it.He certainly will be, if its ministers and members continue to be with Him. And then, what may we not calculate upon in respect to the future? If the M. E. Church should continue to flourish and increase for fifty years to come, as she has done for the fifty years that are past, how vast would be the extent of her influence in the world, how numerous her ministers and members would become, and how gloriously her converts would triumph in heaven! If the number of her ministers and members should increase for fifty years to come, as they have done for the fifty years that are past, they would then amount to 82,687 travelling ministers and preachers, and 29,384,264 Church members. I do not pretend to say that this will be the case; but I do not hesitate to say that this is possible. There is room enough in these United States for a vast increase of its population, and the country is certainly increasing very rapidly. It is not at all impossible, that, in fifty years to come, the population of this country may amount to sixty millions. And why might not the membership of the M. E. Church amount to half that number? But I will not at present indulge in any farther speculation upon this subject; but draw this subject to a close, by briefly inquiring what we ought to do under these circumstances. What then ought the ministers and members of this Church to do, in endeavoring to make some return of gratitude to their Divine Benefactor, for the benefits which He has conferred upon them? Surely, we ought not to sit down in supineness, as though the conquest was already gained. But every minister and member of the Church should be stimulated by a view of what God has already done for us, and the prospect which He is opening up before us, to increased exertion in endeavoring to extend this cause. We have men and money and the whole world lies open before us. Look after our missionaries among the aborigines. Look even beyond the Rocky Mountains, where the intrepid Lees are in search of the wild men of the forests, and laboring and suffering to bring them to the knowledge of God our Savior. Follow the missionary of the cross to Africa, and see that benighted continent opening before him. Look toward Mexico and South America, and see what is to be done there. Thẹn turn your eyes homeward, and behold the multitudes of our own citizens who are living without God in the world. And when you have taken this extensive survey, ask yourselves, What can I do toward extending this cause in the world? Believe that you can do something in this business; and resolve by the grace of God to do it. Depend upon it, God requires this at your hands; and the united prayers, money, and labors, of the members and ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church may, in the course of another half century, VOL. VI.-July, 1835.

22

extend the triumphs of the cross of Christ through all these lande, and add more than 30,000,000 of souls to the society of the redeemed in the earth.

A DISCOURSE ON WATER BAPTISM,

Preached at East Greenwich, R. I., by the Rev. JAMES PORTer.

'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,' Acts ii, 38. THAT the Scriptures enjoin baptism, as the privilege and duty of believers, is universally allowed. But as to the matter of this baptism, there is some difference of opinion; some holding it to be that of the Holy Ghost, and others water. The sentiment of the Quakers is, that all the baptism required by the Gospel is spiritual; and hence they denounce water baptism, and consider those who practise it as somewhat in bondage to the law. Most other Christian denominations admit water baptism, and practise accordingly; though many of them no less believe in the baptism of the Spirit, than the Quakers themselves.

Though this difference of opinion may not immediately involve our eternal interests, if it be maintained with candid and prayerful examination; it nevertheless demands attention, inasmuch as it either encumbers the Gospel and its adherents with a groundless and unmeaning ceremony, or detracts from its worship a most important and significant rite. It ought to be the ambition of all Christians to have the worship of God as simple, and expressive, yet as ceremonial as the Scriptures require. If baptism be a human institution merely, it is desirable to know it, since its observance is attended with much labor to the ministry, and not unfrequently with great inconvenience to the laity. On the other hand, if it be an ordinance of the Gospel, the declarative honor of God, the spirituality and unanimity of His Church require its universal belief.

In this discourse I shall endeavor to maintain, that water baptism is a Gospel ordinance, binding on all Christians. And here, let it be understood, 1. It is no part of my object to prove or disprove the baptism of the Spirit. That God baptized His apostles, and some others, in the apostolic age; or that He communicates His Spirit in a degree to every man at the present, and especially to believers, I readily admit. But that this supersedes water baptism, and proves that it can have no place in the Gospel system, I deny. The progeny of Abraham were all included in God's covenant with him; but this did not supersede the necessity of an outward sign of their relation to God, which was well understood. Neither does the baptism of the Spirit contravene, in the least, that of water, which is its sign. Types cease when their antitypes appear; but signs and substances may exist together. Nor, 2, is it my object to prove that water baptism cleanses the heart from sin. Though this is asserted by papists, it forms no part of the faith of Protestants; neither has it any foundation in reason or Scripture. Aside from the faith of the subject, however holy the administrator, it can no more renew the heart, than the washing of hands, or any other equally insignificant act. Nor yet, 3, shall I

attempt very fully to show what good baptism does. This is not, and ought not to be a question, even with those who believe baptism to be a Divine institution, much less with those who deny it. But if it were necessary to know all its advantages in order to receive it, there will be time enough for this after the first question is settled; viz. Is baptism a Gospel ordinance?

In maintaining the affirmative of this question, I shall,

I. Examine some of the more prominent objections of Friends to water baptism.

II. Adduce such arguments in proof of it, as I may be able.

was

1. The first objection I shall notice is founded on Eph. iv, 5: One Lord, one faith, one baptism.' To consider all that has been written on this text to disprove water baptism, would be equally tedious and disgusting. The most of these writings assume, first, that the apostle said there is but one baptism; and then, with much circumlocution, proceed to prove that water baptism is not that one baptism. Their chief difficulty arises, evidently, from mistaking the whole scope of the apostle's argument. For they go on the supposition, that he treating upon baptism numerically; whereas he undoubtedly referred to the homogeneousness of its nature and obligations, and nothing else. To understand the primitive meaning of this text, it is indispensable to consult the context. The evident design of the apostle was to prevent altercation among the members of the Ephesian Church. Some of them were probably converted Jews, and some Gentiles. Having been differently educated, and in no one thing, perhaps, more than to despise each other, they were in great danger of yielding to their national prejudices, losing the unity of the spirit, and becoming contentious. To forestall this, the apostle addresses them as follows: I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.' He then adds, why they should do this, 'There is one body,' by which he evidently means the Church. One Spirit'-the Holy Ghost, who animates this body. One hope-of everlasting glory. One Lord' Jesus Christ, who governs the Church. One faith'-one system of doctrines. One baptism'-with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That he refers here to water baptism is obvious, from his having just before named the Spirit, which he could not have done in this place, without unpardonable tautology. His argument is, since the Church of Christ is one, though composed of both Jews and Gentiles, having one Spirit, one hope, one Governor, one system of faith, one baptism, the nature and obligations of which are the same to all nations; and since ye all belong to this Church, and have received the same baptism, and taken upon you all its responsibilities; ye ought, therefore, to be meek, long suffering; forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace; and suffer no discord among you. If this then be the true meaning of the passage-and I submit it to the candid to decide-it is so far from disproving water baptism, it is important evidence in its favor.

as reasons

2. The declaration of the Apostle Peter, in his first epistle, iii, 21:

The like figure, whereunto baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' is quoted by Friends as demonstrative of their views. 'So plain a definition of baptism,' says Barclay, 'is not to be found in all the Bible.' But allowing him and his coadjutors all they claim from this passage, we shall only admit, that it exclusively regards spiritual baptism, and hence neither proves nor disproves that of water. Therefore, if their views of it are correct, it does not necessarily follow that ours, in the main,

are wrong.

But, if spiritual baptism be here understood, how can it be said, it is the answer, or, as the Syriac has it, the confession or expression of a good conscience? The office of the Spirit is not to answer a good conscience, but to create one, by renovating the heart, and conforming it to the Divine law. Again: this exposition supposes resemblance between the ark, or waters of the flood, and the baptism of the Spirit, which is not easy to perceive. How is this a like figure of either? On their hypothesis, these difficulties are insuperable; but, when we understand the passage to speak of water baptism, they vanish. This may be considered as the antitype of the waters of the deluge with much propriety; and though it does not save us by putting away the filth of the flesh, yet it is the answer, or confession to the world, of a good conscience. I have already intimated, that circumcision was an expression of covenant relation to God. Baptism, under the Gospel, supplying its place, confesses, with equal distinctness, a good conscience in its subject, and his relation to God. 'No,' says Barclay; ⚫ because many are baptized with water, who are not saved.' And are not many, too, baptized with the Spirit, who are not saved? Suppose some are baptized who have not a good conscience, but are hypocrites, can this affect the design of the ordinance? Do the hypocrisies of men invalidate the institutions of God? Peter is not speaking of baptism as abused; but in its design and instrumental results, when properly observed. Says Dr. Clarke, Noah and his family were saved by water, i. e. it was the instrument of their being saved, through the good providence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive the Holy Spirit in its awakening, cleansing efficacy.'

3. Another objection is founded on 1 Cor. i, 17: Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.' Taking this passage in its utmost latitude of meaning, the conduct of the apostle is unaccountable. If baptizing was not embraced in his commission, and was no part of his business, by what authority did he baptize Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, as confessed in the preceding verses? To say he did it without authority, could not be much to his credit, should we even allow him to be a Friend; for in this case he must have hypocritically claimed authority, or they would not have submitted to be baptized. They knew that the prerogative of baptizing was confided to the apostles; and that to baptize, without authority, would subvert the established order of the Church. These considerations are sufficient to demonstrate, that the apostle used the words, not to baptize,' in a restricted sense. Bishop Pearce translates this, with the approbation of learned commentators: Christ sent me not so