is not a command, not to obey those who have the rule over us.' And we must obey them in things indifferent, or not at all. For in things which God hath forbidden, should such be enjoined, we dare not obey. Nor need they enjoin what God hath commanded.

:

Upon the whole we agree, that Christ is the only supreme Judge and Lawgiver in the church: I may add, and in the world for there is no power,' no secular power, but of God: of God who was manifested in the flesh, who is over all, blessed for ever.' But we do not at all agree in the inference which you would draw therefrom, namely, that there is no subordinate judge or lawgiver in the church. You may just as well infer, That there is no subordinate judge or lawgiver in the world. Yea there is, both in the one and the other. And in obeying these subordinate powers, we do not, as you aver, renounce the supreme: no, but we obey them for his sake.

We believe, it is not only innocent, but our bounden duty so to do: in all things of an indifferent nature to 'submit ourselves to every ordinance of man ;' and that for the Lord's sake: because we think, he has not forbidden, but expressly commanded it. Therefore “as a genuine fruit of our allegiance to Christ," we 'submit' both to the king and governors sent by him,' so far as possibly we can, without breaking some plain command of God. And have not yet brought any plain command, to justify that assertion that "we may not submit either to the king, or to governors sent by him, in any circumstances relating to the worship of God."

you

Here is a plain declaration, There is no power but of God; the powers that exist are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,' (without an absolute necessity, which in things indifferent there is not,) "resisteth the ordinance of God.' And here is a plain command grounded thereon: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.' Now by what Scripture does it appear, That we are not to be subject in any thing pertaining to the worship of

God? This is an exception which we cannot possibly allow, without clear warrant from Holy Writ. And we apprehend, those of the Church of Rome alone, can decently plead for such an exception. It does not sound well in the mouth of a Protestant, to claim an exemption from the jurisdiction of the civil powers, in all matters of religion, and in the minutest circumstance relating to the church.

Another plain command is that mentioned but now: 'Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake.' And this we shall think ourselves hereby fully authorised to do, in things of a religious as well as a civil nature, till you can produce plain, explicit proof from Scripture, that we must submit in the latter, but not in the former. We cannot find any such distinction in the bible; and till we find it there, we cannot receive it. But must believe our allegiance to Christ requires submission to our governors in all things indifferent.

This I speak, even on supposition, that the things in question were enjoined merely by the king and parliament. If they were, what then? Then I would submit to them for the Lord's sake.' So that in all your parade, either with regard to king George or queen Anne, there may be wit, but no wisdom: no force, no argument, till you can support this distinction, from plain testimony of Scripture.

Till this is done, it can never be proved, that "a dissent from the Church of England (whether it can be justified from other topics or not) is the genuine and just consequence, of the allegiance which is due to Christ, as the only Lawgiver in the church." As you proposed to "bring the controversy to this short and plain issue, to let it turn on this single point:" I have done so: I have spoke to this alone; although I could have said something on many other points, which you have advanced as points of the utmost certainty, although they are far more easily affirmed than proved. But I wave them for the present: hoping this may suffice, to shew any fair and candid inquirer,

4

That it is very possible to be united to Christ and to the Church of England at the same time: that we need not separate from the church, in order to preserve our allegiance to Christ; but may be firm members thereof, and yet 'have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man.'

I am, Sir,

Your very humble Servant,
JOHN WESLEY.

BRISTOL, Jan. 10, 1758.

A

TREATISE

ON

BAPTISM.

CONCERNING BAPTISM I shall inquire, What it is: What benefits we receive by it: Whether our Saviour de signed it to remain always in his church: And who are the proper subjects of it?

I. 1. What it is. It is the initiatory sacrament, which enters us into covenant with God. It was instituted by Christ, who alone has power to institute a proper sacrament, a sign, seal, pledge, and means of grace, perpetually obligatory on all Christians. We know not indeed the exact time of its institution; but we know it was long before our Lord's Ascension. And it was instituted in the room of circumcision. For as that was a sign and seal of God's covenant, so is this.

2. The matter of this sacrament is water; which as it has a natural power of cleansing, is the more fit for this symbolical use. Baptism is performed by washing, dipping, or sprinkling the person, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby devoted to the ever blessed Trinity. I say by washing, dipping, or sprinkling: because it is not determined in Scripture, in which of these ways it shall be done, neither by any express precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it; nor by the force or meaning of the word, baptize.

3. That there is no express precept all calm men allow. Neither is there any conclusive example. John's baptism in some things agreed with Christ's, in others differed from it. But it cannot be certainly proved from Scripture, that even John's was performed by dipping. It is true, he baptized in Enon, near Salim, where there was much water.' But this might refer to breadth rather than depth; since a narrow place would not have been sufficient for so great a multitude. Nor can it be proved, that the baptism of our Saviour, or that administered by his disciples was by immersion. No, nor that of the eunuch baptized by Philip; though they both went down to the water:' for that going down may relate to the chariot, and implies no determinate depth of water. It might be up to their knees, it might not be above their ancles.

(

4. And as nothing can be determined from Scriptureprecept or example, so neither from the force or meaning of the word. For the words baptize and baptism do not necessarily imply dipping, but are used in other senses in several places. Thus we read, that the Jews were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea,' (1 Cor. x. 2,) but they were not plunged in either. They could, therefore, be only sprinkled by drops of the sea-water, and refreshing dews from the cloud: probably intimated in that, 'Thou sentest a gracious rain upon thine inheritance, and refreshedest it when it was weary: (Psalm lxviii. 9.) Again, Christ said to his two disciples, "Ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,' (Mark x. 38. :) but neither he nor they were dipt, but only sprinkled or washed with their own blood. Again we read, Mark vii. 4. of the baptisms, (so it is in the original,) of pots and cups, and tables or beds. Now pots and cups are not necessarily dipped when they are washed. Nay, the Pharisees washed the outsides of them only. And as for tables or beds, none will suppose they could be dipped: here then the word baptism in its natural sense, is not taken for dipping, but for washing or cleansing. And, that this is the true meaning of the word baptize, is testified by the greatest